(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4183) [ukfortran] Urgent: letter ballot on interps

[Van Snyder]

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
> do.

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
functions.

> Regards,
> Nick.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3