C vs. FORTRAN (was: What should be added to C)

[D Gary Grady]

In article <478 at cubsvax.UUCP> peters at 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