Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!sei.cmu.edu!firth
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Unnecessary Macros (was Re: Unnecessary Parenthesis)
Message-ID: <7173@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 27 Sep 88 15:27:55 GMT
References: <2089@ssc-vax.UUCP> <441@kaon.uchicago.edu> <1401@devsys.oakhill.UUCP> <23@datcon.UUCP> <8577@smoke.ARPA> <8078@haddock.ima.isc.com> <70279@sun.uucp>
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu
Reply-To: firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa
Lines: 10

In article <70279@sun.uucp> swilson@sun.UUCP (Scott Wilson) writes:
In article <8078@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
In article <8577@smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
In article <23@datcon.UUCP> sar@datcon.co.uk (Simon A Reap) writes:

[several ways to define "square(x)" in C that don't quite work]

Full circle, I think.  We're about back where we started with the
position that the only effective solution is an exponentiation
operator, and let the compiler do the grunt work.