From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Feb 12 21:40:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id E9A23C178DC; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:40:55 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (sentrion1.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.105]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4DDC178DA for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:40:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o1CKeqql028806 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256 bits) verified NO) for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:40:52 -0800 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4175) [ukfortran] Urgent: letter ballot on interps From: Van Snyder Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov To: sc22wg5 In-Reply-To: <20100210193619.72BDDC178DA@www2.open-std.org> References: <20100201122928.54FB8C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20100210005356.4ABF5C3BA23@www2.open-std.org> <4B73001A.8010407@cray.com> <20100210193619.72BDDC178DA@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Yes Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:40:50 -0800 Message-Id: <1266007252.2174.652.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-19.el5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57] X-Source-Sender: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk 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@j3-fortran.org > http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3