Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!utah-gr!utah-cs!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!mybest!moray!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: intrinsic functions, math operators (was: i++, i+=1, i=i+1) Message-ID: <1566@ficc.uu.net> Date: 21 Sep 88 15:18:33 GMT References: <1554@ficc.uu.net> <3907@lanl.gov> Organization: SCADA Lines: 34 In article <3907@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > From article <1554@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): > >> I may indeed want to write > >> my own versions of some of the above functions (add pow() to the list). > > So #undef them. > #undef _only_ works on macros. If pow() is not implemented as a macro, > #undef will do _nothing_ to it. If pow() is not defined as a macro, it's not intrinsic. See below. > By the way, if you really believe that intrinsic functions should not be > identified as such, you'd better hurry - the ANSI committee is about to > define a whole raft of them. It is a good idea though, it helps make > code portable (something that C is particularly bad at). They're defining functions that can be made instrinsic by including a header file that #defines them to something like __INTRINSIC_func__. If you don't want the intrinsic version, you #undef them. It doesn't require either that they be made intrinsic nor that people assume they are. > > There's even a syntax for differentiation that is expressable in ASCII. > And, when differentiation is added to a programming language, the syntax > you mention is the one that should be used. Anyone know what syntax Macsyma uses to indicate differentiation. By the way all this talk of operators and mathematics... what about division? -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" peter@ficc.uu.net