hypotenuse (was: Re: Adding a generic mathematical library)

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> Onsider, for instance, `hypotenuse'. The benefit of having
> that functoin would not quite be zero, but it would be
> small. Is it enough to justify the additional function name,
> and the complexity of documenting it?

RMS has really performed excellently in this discussion and my
favorite part of his critique must be this.

What a sharp eye, to immediately identify the problem of
a proposed solution!

Indeed: Is it enough to justify the "complexity of documenting
it"?

That is an excellent question, and I leave it free for all
to contemplate. Can we justify the complexity?

Or does the below two lines of Elisp belong to the dustbin
of computing?

(defun hypotenuse (c1 c2)
  (sqrt (+ (* c1 c1) (* c2 c2))) )

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal