Cubic Root

[JKop]

Could someone please point me to somewhere where I can get a full
complete reference of the C++ Standard Libaries, how to use all their
functions and global varibles.
Is there any function in the Stdlib for getting the cubic root of a
number?
Thanks,
-JKop

[Boris Sargos]

Why didn't you try :

pow ( x, 1.0 / 3.0 )

Boris

[John Harrison]

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:uT******************@news.indigo.ie...

Could someone please point me to somewhere where I can get a full
complete reference of the C++ Standard Libaries, how to use all their
functions and global varibles.

www.dinkumware.com

john

[P.J. Plauger]

"John Harrison" <jo*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-196037.news.uni-berlin.de...

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:uT******************@news.indigo.ie...

Could someone please point me to somewhere where I can get a full
complete reference of the C++ Standard Libaries, how to use all their
functions and global varibles.

www.dinkumware.com

And there you will find that cbrt is a C99 function. It's not
required for Standard C++. The C++ committee recently voted to
add cbrt and all the other C99 additions to TR1 the (non-normal)
addition to the Standard C++ library currently being developed.
We, of course, already offer it as part of our C/C++ library.

You can, of course, use pow(x, 1.0 / 3.0), but it is typically
way slower and not nearly as accurate as cbrt, at least with
most libraries and some values of x. My bet is that it will do
what you need quite nicely, however.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com

[Claudio Puviani]

"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote

"John Harrison" <jo*************@hotmail.com> wrote

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:uT******************@news.indigo.ie...

Could someone please point me to somewhere where I can get a full
complete reference of the C++ Standard Libaries, how to use all their
functions and global varibles.

www.dinkumware.com

And there you will find that cbrt is a C99 function. It's not
required for Standard C++. The C++ committee recently voted to
add cbrt and all the other C99 additions to TR1 the (non-normal)
addition to the Standard C++ library currently being developed.
We, of course, already offer it as part of our C/C++ library.

You can, of course, use pow(x, 1.0 / 3.0), but it is typically
way slower and not nearly as accurate as cbrt, at least with
most libraries and some values of x. My bet is that it will do
what you need quite nicely, however.

Yeah, sure, but when will they add the really useful functions like
one_plus_fourth_root_of_n_all_over_two_pi()?

Claudio Puviani

[JKop]

Claudio Puviani posted:

"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote

"John Harrison" <jo*************@hotmail.com> wrote

> "JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
> news:uT******************@news.indigo.ie...
> > Could someone please point me to somewhere where I can get a full > > complete reference of the C++ Standard Libaries, how to use all > > their functions and global varibles.
> >
>
> www.dinkumware.com

And there you will find that cbrt is a C99 function. It's not
required for Standard C++. The C++ committee recently voted to
add cbrt and all the other C99 additions to TR1 the (non-normal)
addition to the Standard C++ library currently being developed.
We, of course, already offer it as part of our C/C++ library.

You can, of course, use pow(x, 1.0 / 3.0), but it is typically
way slower and not nearly as accurate as cbrt, at least with
most libraries and some values of x. My bet is that it will do what you need quite nicely, however.

Yeah, sure, but when will they add the really useful functions like
one_plus_fourth_root_of_n_all_over_two_pi()?

Claudio Puviani

I think it'd be a fairly common opinion that "cbrt" would be allot
more commonly used than your contrived example.

[Claudio Puviani]

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote

Claudio Puviani posted:

"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote

And there you will find that cbrt is a C99 function. It's not
required for Standard C++. The C++ committee recently voted to
add cbrt and all the other C99 additions to TR1 the (non-normal)
addition to the Standard C++ library currently being developed.
We, of course, already offer it as part of our C/C++ library.

You can, of course, use pow(x, 1.0 / 3.0), but it is typically
way slower and not nearly as accurate as cbrt, at least with
most libraries and some values of x. My bet is that it will do what you need quite nicely, however.

Yeah, sure, but when will they add the really useful functions like
one_plus_fourth_root_of_n_all_over_two_pi()?

I think it'd be a fairly common opinion that "cbrt" would be allot
more commonly used than your contrived example.

When you're done studying C++, you might want to direct your attention to the
concept of humor. It will help you on those occasions when regulars of this
newsgroup fire off jokes at each other.

Claudio Puviani

[JKop]

Claudio Puviani posted:

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote

Claudio Puviani posted:

> "P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware.com> wrote
>> And there you will find that cbrt is a C99 function. It's not
>> required for Standard C++. The C++ committee recently voted to
>> add cbrt and all the other C99 additions to TR1 the (non- normal) >> addition to the Standard C++ library currently being developed.
>> We, of course, already offer it as part of our C/C++ library.
>>
>> You can, of course, use pow(x, 1.0 / 3.0), but it is typically
>> way slower and not nearly as accurate as cbrt, at least with most >> libraries and some values of x. My bet is that it will do what you >> need quite nicely, however.
>
> Yeah, sure, but when will they add the really useful functions like > one_plus_fourth_root_of_n_all_over_two_pi()?
I think it'd be a fairly common opinion that "cbrt" would be allot
more commonly used than your contrived example.

When you're done studying C++, you might want to direct your

attention to the concept of humor. It will help you on those occasions when
regulars of this newsgroup fire off jokes at each other.

Claudio Puviani

Sorry, I assumed your post was sarcasm.

[Gunnar G]

> You can, of course, use pow(x, 1.0 / 3.0), but it is typically

way slower and not nearly as accurate as cbrt, at least with
most libraries and some values of x. My bet is that it will do
what you need quite nicely, however.

Could you tell me(us) more about the speed and accuracy? Of if you have
some links to some documentation.

Gunnar