From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Wed Feb 10 20:36:19 2010
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 4B11EC178DC; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:36:19 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAF1C178DA
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:36:16 +0100 (CET)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:44180)
	by ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1NfIMA-0006Su-1S (Exim 4.70)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:36:14 +0000
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1NfIMA-000612-E4 (Exim 4.67)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:36:14 +0000
Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.2); 10 Feb 2010 19:36:14 +0000
Date: 10 Feb 2010 19:36:14 +0000
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: longb@cray.com
Cc: "John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk" <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>,
	fortran standards email list for J3 <j3@j3-fortran.org>,
	WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4170) (j3.2006) Urgent: letter ballot on interps
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.2.1002101936140.20937@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4B73001A.8010407@cray.com>
References: <20100201122928.54FB8C178E4@www2.open-std.org>
 <20100210005356.4ABF5C3BA23@www2.open-std.org>
 <Prayer.1.3.2.1002100840210.24280@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
 <4B73001A.8010407@cray.com>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

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.