(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4183) [ukfortran] Urgent: letter ballot on interps
Fri Feb 12 15:40:50 EST 2010
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 11:36 -0800, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> 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
I have a simpler name. How about ""?
I have remarked several times that it is redundant with the L2 norm and
complex absolute value, for which we already provide intrinsic
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
More information about the J3