Anton Haumer

Wouldn't it make sense to collect such functions in Modelica.Math or Modelica.Blocks? I don't know such a function you mentioned, but I think it could be implemented by using Modelica.Blocks.Tables.

Still missing: a test example. Although you are right, the old Power block should be named Exponentiation and the new block should be named Power, the name change is problematic...

I'd prefer to keep the comments as internal documentation - thanks.

> @AHaumer OK, but shall we add > > ```modelica > // Alternative equivalent implementation: > ``` > > as proposed [above](https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/pull/3623#issuecomment-841881148) to make the documentation character more clear to...

I implemented some minor improvements for the IdealFreeWheel, as well as a demo example. Any objections against a PR? [FreeWheel.zip](https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/files/8573467/FreeWheel.zip)

@henrikt-ma: To be honest, I don't know. Maybe because OM has troubles with vectorized function calls: see Modelica.Electrical.PolyPhase.Basic.{Star, Delta} and some more. Feel free to propose a PR. - Thanks...

@HansOlsson don't forget the case when you want to connect more than one vector. I feel somehow uncomfortabel with "solve that with the GUI". Any sound solution?

@henrikt-ma I have to admit I was too busy to consider Nand, Nor, and Xor. And yes you are right, MultiXor is somehow confusing. How would you define it? And...

@HansOlsson you're right, MultiNot is not necessary. And I'd avoid MultiXor - for me it's extermely confusing ;-) Ok we should add MultiNand and MulitNor after clarifying the input (vector...

@tobolar I'll try that - I think that'll work, you're right! Not it doesn't work since we don't have a BooleanMulitplex2 ... And no, I'm not going to implement the...