(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4175) [ukfortran] Urgent: letter ballot on interps

[N.M. Maclaren]

On Feb 10 2010, Bill Long wrote:
>
>>  I believe
>>> that Fred (and maybe Nick) would be happy of the name of the function
>>> were something other than HYPOT, to avoid confusion with the IEEE
>>> HYPOT function.
>> 
>> It would assuredly be less confusing.
>
>The potential for confusion is  greater in F08.  In the context of the 
>F03 standard (against which the interp is formally filed),  one could 
>argue that only "experts" who knew about HYPOT from elsewhere would be 
>confused.  In F08 we actually have an intrinsic function with this name 
>and the same argument list.  The temptation to assume the Note is 
>referring to the same function as the one specified in Clause 13 seems 
>quite high to me.

I would put it more strongly!  Yes, please rename it.  HYPOTENUSE would
do.

Regards,
Nick.