Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #400968 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-11 03:01 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-08-18 11:32 +0200 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 190 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 03:01 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 13:11 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-11 12:45 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 14:34 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 14:55 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 15:19 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 15:27 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 16:08 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 16:18 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 17:11 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 17:20 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 17:32 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 17:39 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 18:33 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 18:39 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-11 23:31 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-08-11 11:46 -0400
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 18:35 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-08-11 22:53 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-12 10:08 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 03:58 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-12 13:31 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-12 22:43 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 13:44 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-13 00:24 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 16:49 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-13 08:38 +0200
Re: Calculation of sine with tables (was Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-13 14:36 +0000
Re: Calculation of sine with tables (was Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-13 17:07 +0200
Re: Calculation of sine with tables (was Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-13 19:07 +0200
Re: Calculation of sine with tables (was Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-13 22:24 +0200
Re: Calculation of sine with tables (was Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow?) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 16:36 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 18:59 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 18:51 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 00:58 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 12:08 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 15:48 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 13:51 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 16:40 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 19:24 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 22:51 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 22:33 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 10:40 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 11:41 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-17 14:48 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-16 14:58 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-14 08:57 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 12:46 -0700
Calculation of sine with tables (was Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-13 14:45 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 13:00 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-15 23:17 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-17 10:07 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-18 00:35 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-18 11:22 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-18 22:22 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-18 21:59 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-18 08:38 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-18 22:17 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-18 15:42 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-18 17:44 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-19 21:55 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-19 18:25 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 04:53 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-08-13 12:59 -0400
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-08-12 20:23 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-11 18:19 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 20:21 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-11 21:10 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-12 00:42 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 06:41 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-12 14:19 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 16:56 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-12 15:32 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-12 22:05 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-08-12 19:09 -0400
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-11 21:58 +0300
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 21:44 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-11 15:45 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 16:56 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 17:23 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 17:24 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-11 16:23 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 17:26 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 17:54 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 18:40 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 08:49 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-08-12 09:11 -0400
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 16:05 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 12:40 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 15:46 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 14:28 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 16:20 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-11 18:43 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 19:56 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-11 20:41 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 06:42 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-12 10:23 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 20:24 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-11 20:27 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 06:45 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 17:16 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-16 07:33 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-16 17:12 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-16 17:51 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-16 18:35 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-16 18:41 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-16 21:30 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-16 23:41 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-17 08:56 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-17 03:32 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-17 08:59 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-17 11:08 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-17 03:48 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-17 04:25 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-17 13:44 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-17 14:26 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-17 16:58 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-17 16:49 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-17 10:22 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-17 19:49 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-17 20:00 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-17 20:37 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-18 18:18 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-18 20:26 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 15:17 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 15:28 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 16:43 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 16:47 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-11 17:24 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-08-11 09:36 -0400
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 16:42 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-11 19:15 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 16:41 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 16:49 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-11 23:28 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 17:51 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 15:33 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 17:49 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 16:19 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 00:32 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 14:08 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 18:40 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-14 02:50 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-12 04:26 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 01:37 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-08-13 00:12 -0400
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-14 11:22 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 01:00 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-14 14:47 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 13:54 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-16 22:49 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-17 14:56 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-17 23:53 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-17 19:59 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-18 02:47 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-17 15:17 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 12:03 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-15 03:51 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 12:52 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-15 04:01 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 13:27 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 13:29 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-15 04:49 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 20:32 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-12 11:28 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-12 23:52 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-13 01:30 +0100
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-13 02:24 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 21:13 -0700
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-13 14:33 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 16:45 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-13 14:55 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 18:10 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-13 16:16 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-13 16:21 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-17 06:37 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-17 21:37 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-13 17:19 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-13 16:09 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-13 18:52 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-08-18 16:33 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-13 17:19 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 19:07 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-14 10:58 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 01:14 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-17 06:40 +0000
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-17 21:40 +0800
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-08-18 00:42 -0500
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-08-18 09:34 +0200
Re: why is there not a ipow version of pow? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-18 11:32 +0200
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11621h7$v1c9$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #401089 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 13/08/2026 00:52, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 11:28:34 +0100, bart wrote:
>>
>>> It is certainly convenient to be able to write 2**32 instead of
>>> 1<<32, where it is so easy to write 2<<32 by mistake.
>>
>> Doesn’t seem any more likely than writing “1**32” though, does it?
>
> Actually it is. I've done it quite a few times. The point of 1<<N is to
> end up with a value of 2**N (ie. a value with only bit N set). But if
> the language allows you to write 2**N anyway, then there's no need to
> use an error prone workaround.
Depends on your mindset. When I want bit N set, then I use shift
if available. 2**N is for languages which lack shifts. I am quite
adept at writing or reading code which use powers to get shifted bits,
but AFAICS it is more error prone than using shifts.
Power is approptiate when power is wanted, but in C I rarely use
powers and cases when base is fixed and equal 2 are even more rare.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-13 17:19 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <__ffS.188496$jNNe.146144@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #400968 |
On 11/08/2026 4:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > Why is there not a ipow version of pow? > > ipow would return an int instead of a double. Or a long long int. > > Thanks, > Lynn > Dear Lynn, I can't speak for the ISO C committee, but my guess is the lack of a multi precision library in the standard. If I remember Tom St Denis' book correctly, implementing an ipow() with such a library is /trivial/ for some version of trivial. I just don't remember if such a function is included in his. In any case, I don't think an ipow() is all that useful unless there is a multiprecision type to return the value. Do you disagree with that? -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-13 19:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <115lm7a$23gp0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401105 |
On 8/13/2026 4:19 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 11/08/2026 4:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >> >> ipow would return an int instead of a double. Or a long long int. >> >> Thanks, >> Lynn >> > > Dear Lynn, > > I can't speak for the ISO C committee, but my guess is the lack of a > multi precision library in the standard. If I remember Tom St Denis' > book correctly, implementing an ipow() with such a library is /trivial/ > for some version of trivial. I just don't remember if such a function > is included in his. > > In any case, I don't think an ipow() is all that useful unless there is > a multiprecision type to return the value. Do you disagree with that? I would rather see a standard user interface toolkit for C++ first. https://wxwidgets.org/ is close but I have yet to try it out. Thanks, Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 10:58 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <0vvfS.292909$aXr.152426@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #401134 |
On 14/08/2026 8:07 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 8/13/2026 4:19 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >> On 11/08/2026 4:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >>> >>> ipow would return an int instead of a double. Or a long long int. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lynn >>> >> >> Dear Lynn, >> >> I can't speak for the ISO C committee, but my guess is the lack of a >> multi precision library in the standard. If I remember Tom St Denis' >> book correctly, implementing an ipow() with such a library is /trivial/ >> for some version of trivial. I just don't remember if such a function >> is included in his. >> >> In any case, I don't think an ipow() is all that useful unless there is >> a multiprecision type to return the value. Do you disagree with that? > > I would rather see a standard user interface toolkit for C++ first. Fair enough. I come at this discussion from comp.lang.c, and as such, don't care what the C++ standards committee does. > > https://wxwidgets.org/ is close but I have yet to try it out. I just treat IUP as an /industry standard/ interface toolkit for C. https://iup.sourceforge.net/ And I believe that would require a different standards committee than -- what was it? WG14 -- to include in the ISO standards collection, as it's still targetting C89 if I'm not mistaken, and doesn't keep up with WG14 at all. Perhaps just best to standardize it with A.N.S.I. in the United States, if at all? I admit ignorance on how much paperwork that is, and I'd certainly include PUC Rio in such discussions, somehow. Even if they're also not in the United States. Best wishes, and happy interfacing with IUP! -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 01:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <115mbnn$29e5c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401141 |
On 8/13/2026 9:58 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
> On 14/08/2026 8:07 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 8/13/2026 4:19 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2026 4:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow?
>>>>
>>>> ipow would return an int instead of a double. Or a long long int.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Lynn,
>>>
>>> I can't speak for the ISO C committee, but my guess is the lack of a
>>> multi precision library in the standard. If I remember Tom St Denis'
>>> book correctly, implementing an ipow() with such a library is /trivial/
>>> for some version of trivial. I just don't remember if such a function
>>> is included in his.
>>>
>>> In any case, I don't think an ipow() is all that useful unless there is
>>> a multiprecision type to return the value. Do you disagree with that?
>>
>> I would rather see a standard user interface toolkit for C++ first.
>
> Fair enough. I come at this discussion from comp.lang.c, and as such,
> don't care what the C++ standards committee does.
>
>>
>> https://wxwidgets.org/ is close but I have yet to try it out.
>
> I just treat IUP as an /industry standard/ interface toolkit for C.
>
> https://iup.sourceforge.net/
>
> And I believe that would require a different standards committee than
> -- what was it? WG14 -- to include in the ISO standards collection, as
> it's still targetting C89 if I'm not mistaken, and doesn't keep up with
> WG14 at all.
>
> Perhaps just best to standardize it with A.N.S.I. in the United States,
> if at all? I admit ignorance on how much paperwork that is, and I'd
> certainly include PUC Rio in such discussions, somehow. Even if they're
> also not in the United States.
>
>
> Best wishes, and happy interfacing with IUP!
Here is a couple of screenshots of our Windows User Interface using MFC
and a dialog toolkit that I ported from our Smalltalk app a few decades ago:
https://www.winsim.com/screenshots.html
As you can see, we use a diagrammatic user interface very similar to
Visio. Ours was written back in the Windows 1.0 days in the 1980s and
significantly enhanced over the years. I would like to get Mac and
Linux versions. And port to 64 bit as some of our simulation flowsheets
are approaching 1 GB where we run out of memory at that point.
I looked at IUP. Looks interesting.
Thanks,
Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 06:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115uadn$p3gv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401134 |
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 19:07:02 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: > I would rather see a standard user interface toolkit for C++ first. With only one exception I’m aware of, there is no standard UI toolkit for *any* cross-platform language, for obvious reasons. Though interestingly, there has been a proposal knocking around among the C++ standardization committee for some years for a standard 2D graphics API. Like the one that has been incorporated in JavaScript, this one is also based on Cairo <https://www.cairographics.org/>, but unlike that, it seems to be even less complete, omitting even text functionality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 21:40 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <KbEgS.847614$la89.813979@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #401246 |
On 17/08/2026 2:40 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 19:07:02 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: > >> I would rather see a standard user interface toolkit for C++ first. > > With only one exception I’m aware of, there is no standard UI toolkit > for *any* cross-platform language, for obvious reasons. What are you talking about? You're running your mouth off again, with- out having the faintest clue what you're talking about. There is a standard UI toolkit, and it's called IUP, and exists for all major 2D graphical operating systems. > > Though interestingly, there has been a proposal knocking around among > the C++ standardization committee for some years for a standard 2D > graphics API. Like the one that has been incorporated in JavaScript, > this one is also based on Cairo <https://www.cairographics.org/>, but > unlike that, it seems to be even less complete, omitting even text > functionality. Yes, that's a failure of the C++ committee. They just can't admit to themselves that the very best UI toolkit out there is meant for C pro- grammers. Otherwise, they'd have standardized IUP decades ago! -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 00:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1160rd1$1ive0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #400968 |
On 8/11/2026 3:01 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Why is there not a ipow version of pow?
>
> ipow would return an int instead of a double. Or a long long int.
>
> Thanks,
> Lynn
Here is my code to date (longint is long long int):
// ipow.cpp
// calculate an longint power of a longint number
// INPUT:
// base - longint value of number
// exp - longint
// OUTPUT:
// longint value of base to the exp power
// REVISIONS:
// ==========
// 08/11/26 Lynn McGuire created using
//
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/101439/the-most-efficient-way-to-implement-an-integer-based-power-function-powint-int
#include "dii.h"
longint ipow (longint base, longint exp)
{
longint result = 1;
std::string str;
if (exp == 0 || base == 0) {
return result;
}
if (exp < 0) {
scrwri ("");
str = "ERROR: exp is negative, " + asString (exp) + " (ipow)";
scrwri (str);
scrwri ("");
quit ();
return 0;
}
for (;;)
{
if (exp & 1)
result *= base;
exp >>= 1;
if (!exp)
break;
base *= base;
}
return result;
} /* ipow */
Thanks,
Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 09:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11611u7$1knut$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401287 |
Am 18.08.2026 um 07:42 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
> longint ipow (longint base, longint exp)
> {
> longint result = 1;
> std::string str;
>
> if (exp == 0 || base == 0) {
> return result;
> }
>
> if (exp < 0) {
> scrwri ("");
> str = "ERROR: exp is negative, " + asString (exp) + " (ipow)";
> scrwri (str);
> scrwri ("");
> quit ();
> return 0;
> }
If x is negative and base is zero you get an infinite result. If base
is +/-1 you get a result of +/-1, depending on if the exponent is odd
or not. If abs( base ) is > 1 you get zero.
> for (;;)
> {
> if (exp & 1)
> result *= base;
> exp >>= 1;
> if (!exp)
> break;
> base *= base;
> }
You've to check exp at the begining. And it's better to have an
overflow detection. But this is possible only with unsigned values
since the compiler can assume that signeds don't overflow.
> return result;
> } /* ipow */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 11:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11618r6$1l41n$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401287 |
On 18/08/2026 07:42, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 8/11/2026 3:01 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow?
>>
>> ipow would return an int instead of a double. Or a long long int.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lynn
>
> Here is my code to date (longint is long long int):
>
> // ipow.cpp
>
> // calculate an longint power of a longint number
>
> // INPUT:
> // base - longint value of number
> // exp - longint
> // OUTPUT:
> // longint value of base to the exp power
>
> // REVISIONS:
> // ==========
> // 08/11/26 Lynn McGuire created using
> // https://stackoverflow.com/questions/101439/the-most-efficient-way-to-
> implement-an-integer-based-power-function-powint-int
>
> #include "dii.h"
>
> longint ipow (longint base, longint exp)
> {
> longint result = 1;
> std::string str;
>
> if (exp == 0 || base == 0) {
> return result;
> }
>
> if (exp < 0) {
> scrwri ("");
> str = "ERROR: exp is negative, " + asString (exp) + " (ipow)";
> scrwri (str);
> scrwri ("");
> quit ();
> return 0;
> }
>
> for (;;)
> {
> if (exp & 1)
> result *= base;
> exp >>= 1;
> if (!exp)
> break;
> base *= base;
> }
>
> return result;
> } /* ipow */
>
It seems odd to have a run-time check for the very unlikely case of a
negative exponent, and no run-time check for overflow.
You should also drop the C90 "declare all variables at the top of the
function" style. It's a bad idea in C, and a terrible idea in C++. You
don't want to be unnecessarily creating a std::string object and running
its constructor and destructor in a function that should be fast.
Instead, put the declaration where it is needed :
const std::string str = "ERROR ..."
I don't know if you are using exceptions in your code base, but if you
are, they would be a better choice here. Then your function could be
made "constexpr" as well as being more efficient in the normal case.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web