jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In comp.lang.fortran Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj bellsouth.net> wrote:

(someone wrote)

(snip)

As an intrinsic function it would not be any different
than any other intrinsic function. It could even
have an argument which was then multiplied by pi.
(Especially useful on non-binary machines.)

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

In comp.lang.fortran Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj bellsouth.net> wrote:
(snip on PI and intrinsic functions)

Fortran 66 has intrinsic functions and basic external
functions. Basic external functions must exist such
that they can be passed as an actual argument to another
function. Intrinsic functions can, and usually are,
generated inline. Some that are usually generated inline
are type conversion, max/min, mod. The max and min
series, accepting a variable number of arguments,
can't be generated as Fortran functions. (That is,
written in standard Fortran.)

I see a few of us are still alive!
I was flying RAF planes in post-war 1946; Then I worked on a
DC-amplifier based teletype output computer for 200 strain gauges an
aircraft factory in 1951 and 52 to find why tails fell off (metal
fatigue at low temperatures).
And later used the Mercury STAR computer for De Havilland "Blue Streak"
guidance simulations (using paper tape and big boxes of spare
dual-triodes). Then I installed several paper-tape 1620's for IBM in
the UK and was involved with Fortran for IBM in the 1961-64 period (and
still use F77 in preference to anything else). Yes, I have the 704
manual and others..
I also wrote the card loader that played music pieces on the 1403
printer chain, and a simple tape operating system for the 1401 (and I
could go on..).
If anybody wants war stories...

Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj bellsouth.net> wrote:

I couldn't quirte follow whether you were talking about Fortran or PL/I,
both having been mentioned in prior paragraphs. I don't know enough PL/I
to comment, so I won't tr. But in Fortran, the standard intrinsic
functions most definitely are part of the language. They are specified
in the standard, are required of all compilers, and are in general just
as much a part of the language as the syntax is.

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

Richard Maine wrote:

Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj bellsouth.net> wrote:

The names of intrinsics are not reserved. You can use them for anything
you like. The practical effects of using the name of an intrinsic depend
on whether you are using it as an external procedure or not.

If you are using the name for something other than an external
procedure, nothing special is required. You can't use the same name for
2 different things in the same scoping unit (with a few exceptions, but
this isn't one), so you won't be able to use that name for the intrinsic
in that scoping unit, although you can still use the intrinsic by that
name in other scoping units. Just using the name for something else will
declare it to be whatever that is instead of the intrinsic.

If you use the name of the intrinsic for an external procedure, then you
must explicitly specify the external attribute (by any of several ways;
the EXTERNAL statement is the oldest). That's basically what the
EXTERNAL attribute says - that the name is being used for an external
instead of for an intrinsic.

Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj bellsouth.net> wrote:

That is genericity. It is not directly related to whether or not
something is intrinsic. Generic intrinsic procedures were added to the
language in f77. As of f90, the user can also define generics (or extend
the intrinsic generics).

To re-emphasize generic/=intrinsic. They are unrelated concepts. All 4
combinations of generic/specific crossed with intrinsic/nonintrinsic
exist.