C Builtin Functions

[Root Boy Jim]

> >I can feel the flames ("More operators?  It's getting as bad as APL!").
 
Hey, the more primitives, the better. I also like(d) TECO. Just because
a language is terse, doesn't mean it's unreadable. In my opinion, people
who laughed at the greek were just to lazy to learn the lingo. APL is
quite readable once you get used to it, especially with direct definition.

> Excuse me...in APL parlance (eg, the language used in the APL Draft Standard),
> things like "+", "-",etc. are called functions, as are user-defined functions.
> Operators are things which alter the effect of functions, such as "." in the 
> context of "+.x", which causes an inner matrix product to be evaluated.

Interesting. Would the construct `+.FUNC' be legal also?
 
> (No, this doesn't belong in net.lang.c, but YOU STARTED IT!)
 
And I'm adding to it.

> Peter S. Shenkin	 Columbia Univ. Biology Dept., NY, NY  10027
> {philabs,rna}!cubsvax!peters		cubsvax!peters at columbia.ARPA

	(Root Boy) Jim Cottrell		<rbj at cmr>
	"One man gathers what another man spills"