Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: C vs. FORTRAN (was: What should be added to C) Message-ID: <1636@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 31-May-86 11:44:11 EDT Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1636 Posted: Sat May 31 11:44:11 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jun-86 08:39:40 EDT References: <1594@ecsvax.UUCP> <853@bentley.UUCP> <478@cubsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr Lines: 24 Summary: "intrinsic" neologism for "in-line" In article <478@cubsvax.UUCP> peters@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin) writes: >All my FORTRAN books call these *intrinsic* functions. This is equivalent >in meaning to "built-in." An "in-line" function sounds more like what would >be meant by FORTRAN's *statement* function . . . The term "intrinsic" is relatively new to FORTRAN; my late-60s manuals have never heard of it. "Intrinsic" and "in-line" (the older term, still in use among us aging geezers) are synonyms, meaning function names known to and handled by the compiler (or at least eligible for such treatment). For what it's worth, IBM's VS FORTRAN language reference manual uses "intrinsic" and "in-line" more-or-less interchangeably. "Built-in," on the other hand, is poorly defined and could reasonably be interpreted to mean functions that are a defined part of the FORTRAN language and hence "built in" to it. You're right, of course, that this no longer belongs in net.lang.c, and I'm sorry I started it (by trying to point out what changes to C would make it a better successor to FORTRAN as a language for science and engineering). -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary