Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!kddlab!trl!rdmei!ptimtc!olivea!samsung!usc!rutgers!cmcl2!hsdndev!spdcc!ima!dirtydog!karl From: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: prototyping (oh no! not again??) Message-ID: <1990Dec01.053840.29499@dirtydog.ima.isc.com> Date: 1 Dec 90 05:38:40 GMT References: <4402@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> Sender: news@dirtydog.ima.isc.com (NEWS ADMIN) Reply-To: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) Organization: Interactive Systems Lines: 15 In article <4402@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Why not check a manual and find out before complaining that C hasn't got >an equivalent of **? In ANSI C, if you have done > #include >there is no significant non-syntactic difference between pow() and > ** . But there *is* a significant difference between pow() and Fortran's ** . (Namely, the latter gets the right answer.) Therefore, I have to agree with John that C hasn't got an equivalent of **. (One can, of course, argue that it's not a serious flaw since the missing functionality can be easily provided by the user if not by the vendor.) Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@ima.isc.com or uunet!ima!karl), The Walking Lint Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com