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 | 20 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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 14:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <115hnoa$pov1$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401054 |
The difference between my code and that of Fortran 77 are:
* 0 ^ 0 is forbidden with F77, the result of my code is one.
* 0 ^ -n is forbidden with F77, the result of my code is infinite
/ unexpected( true ).
* F77 doesn't have an overflow detection, I return unexpected( false ).
The following code is slightly changed in it's API.
template<typename Int>
constexpr expected<Int, bool> ipow( Int b, Int e )
{
constexpr bool Sgn = is_signed_v<Int>;
using uint = make_unsigned_t<Int>;
constexpr auto
Infinite = unexpected( true ),
Overflow = unexpected( false );
if( !b )
if constexpr( Sgn )
if( e >= 0 )
return !e;
else
return Infinite;
else
return !e;
uint ub = b, ue = e;
if constexpr( Sgn )
if( constexpr auto *Abs = +[]( Int v ) -> uint { return v >= 0 ? v :
0u - (uint)v; };
e >= 0 ) [[likely]]
{
ub = Abs( b );
ue = Abs( e );
}
else
{
Int neg = -(e & 1);
return ((Abs( b ) == 1 ? b : 0) ^ neg) - neg;
}
uint result = 1, sq = ub;
for( int xskip = 0; ue; xskip = 1 ) [[likely]]
{
int skip = countr_zero( ue );
for( int s = skip + xskip; s; sq *= sq, --s ) [[likely]]
if( (uint)(sq * sq) / sq != sq ) [[unlikely]]
return Overflow;
if( (uint)(result * sq) / sq != result ) [[unlikely]]
return Overflow;
result *= sq;
ue >>= skip;
ue >>= 1;
}
constexpr uint UMax = numeric_limits<Int>::min();
if constexpr( Sgn )
if( b < 0 && (e & 1) ) [[unlikely]]
if( result <= UMax ) [[likely]]
result = -(Int)result;
else
return Overflow;
else
if( result >= UMax ) [[unlikely]]
return Overflow;
return (Int)result;
}
A return value of unexpected( true ) is infinity and unexpected( false )
is an overflow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <115i7m3$vdd6$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401068 |
Nice fact: clang++ and g++ are *much* faster than MSVC with my code. I asked my self why is that and I had a look at the compiled code. I do a "b * e / b == b" check. MSVC uses a division for that. g++ and clang++ just check the overflow flag after doing the multipli- cation. I guess that makes the difference since the other code is similar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 02:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115lvp4$2639l$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401075 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 18:40:37 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote: > Nice fact: clang++ and g++ are *much* faster than MSVC with my code. > I asked my self why is that and I had a look at the compiled code. I > do a "b * e / b == b" check. MSVC uses a division for that. g++ and > clang++ just check the overflow flag after doing the multiplication. Clever. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 04:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115gsld$hg2l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #400968 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: > Why is there not a ipow version of pow? Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common use do not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s there in the name, isn’t it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 01:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <115h4bp$jfqe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401047 |
On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: > >> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? > > Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s > all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are > liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument > (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common use do > not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s there in > the name, isn’t it? This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe even a 128 bit int. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-13 00:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <115jg8d$1berc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401056 |
On Wed, 8/12/2026 2:37 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow?
>>
>> Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s
>> all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are
>> liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument
>> (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common use do
>> not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s there in
>> the name, isn’t it?
>
> This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe even a 128 bit int.
>
> Lynn
>
Fun with LLM-AI.
Assumes "sudo apt install libgmp-dev" has already been done, for the components needed.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <gmp.h>
// gcc -Wall -O2 -o gmp_pow_demo gmp_pow_demo.c -lgmp
int main(void)
{
// mpz_ui_pow_ui only accepts unsigned long for both base and exponent.
// If you want negative bases, you must use mpz_pow_ui(mpz_t rop, const mpz_t base, unsigned long int exp)
struct {
unsigned long a;
unsigned long b;
const char *desc;
} tests[] = {
{0, 0, "Zero to the zeroth power"},
{0, 5, "Zero to a positive power"},
{5, 0, "Positive to zero power"},
{1, 100, "One to a high power"},
{2, 63, "2^63 (fits in 64 bits)"},
{2, 127, "2^127 (fits in 128 bits)"},
{7, 20, "Small base, moderate exponent"},
{123456789ULL, 5, "Large base, small exponent"},
{15, 15, "15^15"},
};
mpz_t result;
mpz_init(result);
for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof(tests)/sizeof(tests[0]); ++i) {
unsigned long a = tests[i].a;
unsigned long b = tests[i].b;
mpz_ui_pow_ui(result, a, b);
printf("Test %zu: %s\n", i + 1, tests[i].desc);
printf(" a = %lu, b = %lu\n", a, b);
// Print the result
gmp_printf(" result = %Zd\n", result);
// Print the bit size of the result
printf(" GMP bit-size = %zu bits\n\n", mpz_sizeinbase(result, 2));
}
mpz_clear(result);
return 0;
}
$ ./gmp_pow_demo
Test 1: Zero to the zeroth power
a = 0, b = 0
result = 1
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 2: Zero to a positive power
a = 0, b = 5
result = 0
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 3: Positive to zero power
a = 5, b = 0
result = 1
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 4: One to a high power
a = 1, b = 100
result = 1
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 5: 2^63 (fits in 64 bits)
a = 2, b = 63
result = 9223372036854775808
GMP bit-size = 64 bits
Test 6: 2^127 (fits in 128 bits)
a = 2, b = 127
result = 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
GMP bit-size = 128 bits
Test 7: Small base, moderate exponent
a = 7, b = 20
result = 79792266297612001
GMP bit-size = 57 bits
Test 8: Large base, small exponent
a = 123456789, b = 5
result = 28679718602997181072337614380936720482949
GMP bit-size = 135 bits
Test 9: 15^15
a = 15, b = 15
result = 437893890380859375
GMP bit-size = 59 bits
************************************
#include <stdio.h>
#include <gmp.h>
// gcc -Wall -O2 -o gmp_pow_demo2 gmp_pow_demo2.c -lgmp
int main(void)
{
struct {
long a; // signed base
unsigned long b; // exponent
const char *desc;
} tests[] = {
{0, 0, "Zero to the zeroth power"},
{0, 7, "Zero to a positive power"},
{5, 0, "Positive to zero power"},
{-5, 0, "Negative to zero power"},
{1, 100, "One to a high power"},
{-1, 101, "Negative one to an odd power"},
{-1, 100, "Negative one to an even power"},
{-2, 63, "Negative base, odd exponent"},
{-2, 64, "Negative base, even exponent"},
{2, 127, "2^127 (fits in 128 bits)"},
{-3, 20, "Negative base, moderate exponent"},
{123456789L, 5, "Large positive base"},
{-123456789L, 5, "Large negative base"},
{15, 15, "15^15"},
{-15, 15, "-15^15"},
};
mpz_t base, result;
mpz_init(base);
mpz_init(result);
for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof(tests)/sizeof(tests[0]); ++i) {
long a = tests[i].a;
unsigned long b = tests[i].b;
mpz_set_si(base, a); // load signed base into mpz_t
mpz_pow_ui(result, base, b);
printf("Test %zu: %s\n", i + 1, tests[i].desc);
printf(" a = %ld, b = %lu\n", a, b);
gmp_printf(" result = %Zd\n", result);
printf(" GMP bit-size = %zu bits\n\n",
mpz_sizeinbase(result, 2));
}
mpz_clear(base);
mpz_clear(result);
return 0;
}
$ ./gmp_pow_demo2
Test 1: Zero to the zeroth power
a = 0, b = 0
result = 1
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 2: Zero to a positive power
a = 0, b = 7
result = 0
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 3: Positive to zero power
a = 5, b = 0
result = 1
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 4: Negative to zero power
a = -5, b = 0
result = 1
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 5: One to a high power
a = 1, b = 100
result = 1
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 6: Negative one to an odd power
a = -1, b = 101
result = -1
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 7: Negative one to an even power
a = -1, b = 100
result = 1
GMP bit-size = 1 bits
Test 8: Negative base, odd exponent
a = -2, b = 63
result = -9223372036854775808
GMP bit-size = 64 bits
Test 9: Negative base, even exponent
a = -2, b = 64
result = 18446744073709551616
GMP bit-size = 65 bits
Test 10: 2^127 (fits in 128 bits)
a = 2, b = 127
result = 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
GMP bit-size = 128 bits
Test 11: Negative base, moderate exponent
a = -3, b = 20
result = 3486784401
GMP bit-size = 32 bits
Test 12: Large positive base
a = 123456789, b = 5
result = 28679718602997181072337614380936720482949
GMP bit-size = 135 bits
Test 13: Large negative base
a = -123456789, b = 5
result = -28679718602997181072337614380936720482949
GMP bit-size = 135 bits
Test 14: 15^15
a = 15, b = 15
result = 437893890380859375
GMP bit-size = 59 bits
Test 15: -15^15
a = -15, b = 15
result = -437893890380859375
GMP bit-size = 59 bits
Now, this is the kind of programming task, the LLM-AI likes.
I didn't get any predictions of doom or anything :-)
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 11:22 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <SRvfS.17421$k1Ya.4392@fx12.ams4> |
| In reply to | #401056 |
On 12/08/2026 2:37 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> >>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >> >> Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s >> all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are >> liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument >> (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common use do >> not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s there in >> the name, isn’t it? > > This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe even a > 128 bit int. > > Lynn > Is there a reason you don't use a multiprecision library, such as the one by the late Tom St Denis, in your code base? -- 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 01:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <115maua$295ib$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401142 |
On 8/13/2026 10:22 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 12/08/2026 2:37 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> >>>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >>> >>> Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s >>> all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are >>> liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument >>> (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common use do >>> not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s there in >>> the name, isn’t it? >> >> This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe even a >> 128 bit int. >> >> Lynn >> > > Is there a reason you don't use a multiprecision library, such as the > one by the late Tom St Denis, in your code base? I am converting from Fortran 77 to C++. The last thing I want to do is introduce more new features in the code. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 14:47 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <YRyfS.292915$aXr.102229@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #401149 |
On 14/08/2026 2:00 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 8/13/2026 10:22 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >> On 12/08/2026 2:37 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >>>> >>>> Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s >>>> all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are >>>> liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument >>>> (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common use do >>>> not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s there in >>>> the name, isn’t it? >>> >>> This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe even >>> a 128 bit int. >>> >>> Lynn >>> >> >> Is there a reason you don't use a multiprecision library, such as the >> one by the late Tom St Denis, in your code base? > > I am converting from Fortran 77 to C++. The last thing I want to do is > introduce more new features in the code. > > Lynn > Fair enough. If you change your mind -- and for other people interested in the subject -- you can look at chapter seven of Tom's book. Of course, you won't need to read the details of the implementation just to use the library, which is available somewhere on GitHub. Have a nice day! -- 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 13:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <115noa0$2pcfe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401151 |
On 8/14/2026 1:47 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 14/08/2026 2:00 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> On 8/13/2026 10:22 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >>> On 12/08/2026 2:37 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s >>>>> all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are >>>>> liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument >>>>> (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common use do >>>>> not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s there in >>>>> the name, isn’t it? >>>> >>>> This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe even >>>> a 128 bit int. >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> >>> >>> Is there a reason you don't use a multiprecision library, such as the >>> one by the late Tom St Denis, in your code base? >> >> I am converting from Fortran 77 to C++. The last thing I want to do >> is introduce more new features in the code. >> >> Lynn >> > > Fair enough. If you change your mind -- and for other people interested > in the subject -- you can look at chapter seven of Tom's book. Of > course, you won't need to read the details of the implementation just to > use the library, which is available somewhere on GitHub. > > > Have a nice day! BTW, in Smalltalk you can return any type of object from a method. But if the caller got a weird object back, it was a place of confusion and often a crash as the expected object type was not the actual object type. So, all objects had to have a common set of methods (read, write, print, add, etc) to keep weird crashes from happening. I ended up putting all methods at an object and the base object too. Our base object had hundreds of methods to handle weird cases. I way prefer strongly typed languages now. Stops a lot of crazy at runtime, also known as crashes. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115tep0$hgk7$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401164 |
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:54:54 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: > BTW, in Smalltalk you can return any type of object from a method. > But if the caller got a weird object back, it was a place of > confusion and often a crash as the expected object type was not the > actual object type. > > I way prefer strongly typed languages now. Smalltalk IS “strongly typed”. I think you mean “statically typed”, as opposed to “dynamically typed”. > So, all objects had to have a common set of methods (read, write, > print, add, etc) to keep weird crashes from happening. I ended up > putting all methods at an object and the base object too. Our base > object had hundreds of methods to handle weird cases. Shouldn’t you have cleaned up the code to deal properly with the different object types? This is why newer dynamic languages, like Python, are introducing type annotations. These are handled by a separate processor (à la “lint” for C code) which tries to flag up inconsistencies between expected and actual types, as indicated by a static analysis of the annotations. This would let you fix up those inconsistencies even before the code gets a chance to run. Of course such a scheme is not perfect, and can never be, without giving up dynamic typing altogether. And then you’d probably end up with Java or something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 14:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <115vp2b$19hn8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401241 |
On 8/16/2026 5:49 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:54:54 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> BTW, in Smalltalk you can return any type of object from a method.
>> But if the caller got a weird object back, it was a place of
>> confusion and often a crash as the expected object type was not the
>> actual object type.
>>
>> I way prefer strongly typed languages now.
>
> Smalltalk IS “strongly typed”. I think you mean “statically typed”, as
> opposed to “dynamically typed”.
...
Our particular variant of Smalltalk, Whitewater Actor, was not strongly
typed. You could have a var calling any gibberish that you called a
method and it was not linked until runtime with the subsequent crash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_(programming_language)
The only thing that I miss about Smalltalk is the casual heterogeneous
collections. Those were immensely useful. I built several classes in
C++ to model them with a common ancestor class but never got the same
effect.
Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 23:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11606te$1d7dv$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401265 |
On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 14:56:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 8/16/2026 5:49 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:54:54 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> >>> BTW, in Smalltalk you can return any type of object from a method. >>> But if the caller got a weird object back, it was a place of >>> confusion and often a crash as the expected object type was not >>> the actual object type. >>> >>> I way prefer strongly typed languages now. >> >> Smalltalk IS “strongly typed”. I think you mean “statically typed”, >> as opposed to “dynamically typed”. > ... > Our particular variant of Smalltalk, Whitewater Actor, was not > strongly typed. You could have a var calling any gibberish that you > called a method and it was not linked until runtime with the > subsequent crash. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_(programming_language) Ah, I see. Looks like they were relying on a generic machine-code linker to tie things together, instead of having their own language-specific linking layer to avoid accidents like this. > The only thing that I miss about Smalltalk is the casual > heterogeneous collections. Those were immensely useful. I built > several classes in C++ to model them with a common ancestor class > but never got the same effect. Is that just a list or table where the entries can have any type? That’s a standard thing in any dynamic language, surely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 19:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1160aq6$1etg3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401283 |
On 8/17/2026 6:53 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 14:56:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: > >> On 8/16/2026 5:49 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:54:54 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> >>>> BTW, in Smalltalk you can return any type of object from a method. >>>> But if the caller got a weird object back, it was a place of >>>> confusion and often a crash as the expected object type was not >>>> the actual object type. >>>> >>>> I way prefer strongly typed languages now. >>> >>> Smalltalk IS “strongly typed”. I think you mean “statically typed”, >>> as opposed to “dynamically typed”. >> ... >> Our particular variant of Smalltalk, Whitewater Actor, was not >> strongly typed. You could have a var calling any gibberish that you >> called a method and it was not linked until runtime with the >> subsequent crash. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_(programming_language) > > Ah, I see. Looks like they were relying on a generic machine-code > linker to tie things together, instead of having their own > language-specific linking layer to avoid accidents like this. > >> The only thing that I miss about Smalltalk is the casual >> heterogeneous collections. Those were immensely useful. I built >> several classes in C++ to model them with a common ancestor class >> but never got the same effect. > > Is that just a list or table where the entries can have any type? > That’s a standard thing in any dynamic language, surely. Yup. Smalltalk had Dictionary, Bag, and Map. All heterogeneous. Lynn Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 02:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1160h42$1g1j0$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401284 |
On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 19:59:50 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 8/17/2026 6:53 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 14:56:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing that I miss about Smalltalk is the casual
>>> heterogeneous collections. Those were immensely useful. I built
>>> several classes in C++ to model them with a common ancestor class
>>> but never got the same effect.
>>
>> Is that just a list or table where the entries can have any type?
>> That’s a standard thing in any dynamic language, surely.
>
> Yup. Smalltalk had Dictionary, Bag, and Map. All heterogeneous.
Python has actual expressions you can use to build those in the
language itself. E.g. from <https://gitlab.com/ldo/dbussy>:
standard_interfaces = \
{
DBUS.INTERFACE_PEER :
# note implementation of this is hard-coded inside libdbus
Introspection.Interface
(
name = DBUS.INTERFACE_PEER,
methods =
[
Introspection.Interface.Method(name = "Ping"),
Introspection.Interface.Method
(
name = "GetMachineId",
args =
[
Introspection.Interface.Method.Arg
(
name = "machine_uuid",
type = BasicType(TYPE.STRING),
direction = Introspection.DIRECTION.OUT,
),
]
),
],
),
DBUS.INTERFACE_LOCAL :
# note implementation of this is hard-coded inside, and specific to, libdbus
Introspection.Interface
(
name = DBUS.INTERFACE_LOCAL,
signals =
[
Introspection.Interface.Signal(name = "Disconnected"),
# auto-generated by libdbus with path = DBUS.PATH_LOCAL
# when connection is closed; cannot be explicitly sent by
# clients. Documented here:
# <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2018-October/017587.html>
],
),
...
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 15:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <115vq87$1a0fs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401241 |
On 8/16/2026 5:49 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:54:54 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: > >> BTW, in Smalltalk you can return any type of object from a method. >> But if the caller got a weird object back, it was a place of >> confusion and often a crash as the expected object type was not the >> actual object type. >> >> I way prefer strongly typed languages now. > > Smalltalk IS “strongly typed”. I think you mean “statically typed”, as > opposed to “dynamically typed”. > >> So, all objects had to have a common set of methods (read, write, >> print, add, etc) to keep weird crashes from happening. I ended up >> putting all methods at an object and the base object too. Our base >> object had hundreds of methods to handle weird cases. > > Shouldn’t you have cleaned up the code to deal properly with the > different object types? ... Yup. My employees and I converted all of the Smalltalk code to C++ using a Act2Cpp translator that I wrote. Works like a champ and runs 120X faster. Yes, I timed the old code versus the new code. The C++ code was more verbose. 250,000 lines of Smalltalk converted to 450,000 lines of C++. Tough tookie, the speed was everything. And Win32 instead of Win16. Some of my customers are using datasets over a gigabyte in size so we are moving to Win64 soon as soon as my employee finishes the Unicode port, the first version of the software ran under Windows 2.0. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <115nopc$2phb4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401151 |
On 8/13/2026 11:47 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 14/08/2026 2:00 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> On 8/13/2026 10:22 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >>> On 12/08/2026 2:37 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s >>>>> all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are >>>>> liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument >>>>> (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common use do >>>>> not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s there in >>>>> the name, isn’t it? >>>> >>>> This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe even >>>> a 128 bit int. >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> >>> >>> Is there a reason you don't use a multiprecision library, such as the >>> one by the late Tom St Denis, in your code base? >> >> I am converting from Fortran 77 to C++. The last thing I want to do >> is introduce more new features in the code. >> >> Lynn >> > > Fair enough. If you change your mind -- and for other people interested > in the subject -- you can look at chapter seven of Tom's book. Of > course, you won't need to read the details of the implementation just to > use the library, which is available somewhere on GitHub. > > > Have a nice day! The have a nice day, and the -- are tell tale signs of an AI writing your responses?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 03:51 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <LkKfS.185925$xpxd.93144@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #401165 |
On 15/08/2026 3:03 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 8/13/2026 11:47 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >> On 14/08/2026 2:00 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> On 8/13/2026 10:22 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >>>> On 12/08/2026 2:37 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s >>>>>> all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are >>>>>> liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument >>>>>> (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common use do >>>>>> not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s >>>>>> there in >>>>>> the name, isn’t it? >>>>> >>>>> This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe >>>>> even a 128 bit int. >>>>> >>>>> Lynn >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is there a reason you don't use a multiprecision library, such as the >>>> one by the late Tom St Denis, in your code base? >>> >>> I am converting from Fortran 77 to C++. The last thing I want to do >>> is introduce more new features in the code. >>> >>> Lynn >>> >> >> Fair enough. If you change your mind -- and for other people interested >> in the subject -- you can look at chapter seven of Tom's book. Of >> course, you won't need to read the details of the implementation just to >> use the library, which is available somewhere on GitHub. >> >> >> Have a nice day! > > The have a nice day, and the -- are tell tale signs of an AI writing > your responses? Is the expression /tell tale/ a sign of you insisting I use A.I. when you know I don't? Do you get off of writing tall tales? Do you post in alt.sex.erotica.moderated? Are you the moderator? -- 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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <115nrm0$2qeo5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401173 |
On 8/14/2026 12:51 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 15/08/2026 3:03 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 8/13/2026 11:47 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >>> On 14/08/2026 2:00 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>> On 8/13/2026 10:22 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >>>>> On 12/08/2026 2:37 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>>> On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: it’s >>>>>>> all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature are >>>>>>> liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument >>>>>>> (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common >>>>>>> use do >>>>>>> not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s >>>>>>> there in >>>>>>> the name, isn’t it? >>>>>> >>>>>> This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe >>>>>> even a 128 bit int. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lynn >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there a reason you don't use a multiprecision library, such as the >>>>> one by the late Tom St Denis, in your code base? >>>> >>>> I am converting from Fortran 77 to C++. The last thing I want to do >>>> is introduce more new features in the code. >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> >>> >>> Fair enough. If you change your mind -- and for other people interested >>> in the subject -- you can look at chapter seven of Tom's book. Of >>> course, you won't need to read the details of the implementation just to >>> use the library, which is available somewhere on GitHub. >>> >>> >>> Have a nice day! >> >> The have a nice day, and the -- are tell tale signs of an AI writing >> your responses? > > Is the expression /tell tale/ a sign of you insisting I use A.I. when > you know I don't? Do you get off of writing tall tales? Do you post > in alt.sex.erotica.moderated? Are you the moderator? > Are you using AI to help write your responses? There are some flags.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 04:01 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <fuKfS.442876$jNNe.9517@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #401175 |
On 15/08/2026 3:52 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 8/14/2026 12:51 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >> On 15/08/2026 3:03 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 8/13/2026 11:47 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >>>> On 14/08/2026 2:00 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>> On 8/13/2026 10:22 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >>>>>> On 12/08/2026 2:37 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 11:26 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 03:01:07 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why is there not a ipow version of pow? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps for the same reason there aren’t integer log functions: >>>>>>>> it’s >>>>>>>> all down to dynamic range. Logs and exponentials by their nature >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> liable to cover a huge range of magnitudes in either the argument >>>>>>>> (logarithm) or result (exponential). Integer formats in common >>>>>>>> use do >>>>>>>> not cater for this. Whereas with floating-point -- well, it’s >>>>>>>> there in >>>>>>>> the name, isn’t it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is why you calculate and return a long long int. Or maybe >>>>>>> even a 128 bit int. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lynn >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there a reason you don't use a multiprecision library, such as the >>>>>> one by the late Tom St Denis, in your code base? >>>>> >>>>> I am converting from Fortran 77 to C++. The last thing I want to >>>>> do is introduce more new features in the code. >>>>> >>>>> Lynn >>>>> >>>> >>>> Fair enough. If you change your mind -- and for other people >>>> interested >>>> in the subject -- you can look at chapter seven of Tom's book. Of >>>> course, you won't need to read the details of the implementation >>>> just to >>>> use the library, which is available somewhere on GitHub. >>>> >>>> >>>> Have a nice day! >>> >>> The have a nice day, and the -- are tell tale signs of an AI writing >>> your responses? >> >> Is the expression /tell tale/ a sign of you insisting I use A.I. when >> you know I don't? Do you get off of writing tall tales? Do you post >> in alt.sex.erotica.moderated? Are you the moderator? >> > > Are you using AI to help write your responses? There are some flags. You're completely free to capture the flag on your own. You'll just have to write the game in C, because I'm coming at this from comp.lang. c. And not comp.lang.c++. I still type my replies by hand, but you're unable to do so, so you must dictate to Siri, which sends the request to Copilot, which hopefully uses the most expensive Usenet service available for your posts. I mean, why stop at paying both the fruit vendor for Siri, and Microsoft for Copilot, and not get the world's best and greatest Usenet provider? Happy posting on Usenet with Siri and Copilot! -- 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]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web