From Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at  Wed May 24 08:16:18 2000
From: Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at (Kurt Hornik)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:16:18 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Rd] hypot(x,y) instead of pythag(a,b) ?!
In-Reply-To: <14633.17445.635566.303613@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
References: <14633.17445.635566.303613@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Message-ID: <14635.33218.325606.890109@aragorn.ci.tuwien.ac.at>

>>>>> Martin Maechler writes:

> Some of you may have seen the  pythag() part in the R API definition in 
> "Writing R Extensions" (source = doc/manual/R-exts.texinfo).

> or followed the report and Prof. Brian Ripley's answer about pythag()'s
> availability from R's binary.

> As we say in above manual

>>> `pythag(A, B)' computes `sqrt(A^2 + B^2)' without overflow or
>>> destructive underflow: for example it still works when both A and
>>> B are between `1e200' and `1e300' (in IEEE double precision).

> --
> "Problem" is : 
> The GNU C library (and other C libraries ??)
> defines a function	 
> 	 double hypot(double x, double y)

> with identical semantics to our pythag() from above
> The Info (e.g. in Linux Emacs C-h i "m libc") about "Libc" contains
> (in the section "Exponentiation and Logarithms"):

> =============================
>>> - Function: double hypot (double X, double Y)
>>> - Function: float hypotf (float X, float Y)
>>> - Function: long double hypotl (long double X, long double Y)
>>> These functions return `sqrt (X*X + Y*Y)'.  This is the length of
>>> the hypotenuse of a right triangle with sides of length X and Y,
>>> or the distance of the point (X, Y) from the origin.  Using this
>>> function instead of the direct formula is wise, since the error is
>>> much smaller.  See also the function `cabs' in *Note Absolute
>>> Value::.

> Further "problem": In R, we are already partially relying on the
> availability of the hypot() function :

> At the toplevel of R-1.0.1's source
>    grep -rwn hypot . 
>    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (with a newer GNU grep that has "-r" for "recursive"):
> gives

> ./src/appl/cpoly.c:145:	shr[i] = hypot(pr[i], pi[i]);
> ./src/appl/fortran.c:111:    return hypot(z->r, z->i);
> ./src/main/complex.c:122:    logr = log(hypot(a->r, a->i) );
> ./src/main/complex.c:279:  REAL(y)[i] = hypot(COMPLEX(x)[i].r, COMPLEX(x)[i].i);
> ./src/main/complex.c:285:  REAL(y)[i] = hypot(COMPLEX(x)[i].r, COMPLEX(x)[i].i);
> ./src/main/complex.c:388:    r->r = log(hypot( z->r, z->i ));
> ./src/main/complex.c:411:    if( (mag = hypot(z->r, z->i)) == 0.0)
> ./src/main/plot.c:1201:		if ((f = d/hypot(xx-xold, yy-yold)) < 0.5) {
> ./src/main/plot.c:2455:double hypot(double x, double y)
> ./src/main/plot.c:2559:		d = hypot(xp-xi, yp-yi);
> ./src/gnuwin32/math/protos.h:43:extern double hypot ( double x, double y );

> ---------

> My "theses"
   
>    o when hypot() is available, it should be used since it will be 
>      efficient, precise, etc.
>    o when it's not available, our "configure" should find out, and set
>      corresponding "HAVE_HYPOT" to `false'.
>    o in that case, we should provide a hypot()  {for the above code to
>      work!}, and we probably should use (an improvement?) of the current
>      pythag() function [src/appl/pythag.c in R versions <= 1.0.1].
   
>    o Hence, we should drop pythag() from the R API and rather say that we
>      provide hypot() whenever the system's C library 
>      (or its "math.h", aka libm.*, aka "-m" part, respectively) does *not* 
>      provide it.

>    o I think an R function  hypot() would also make sense.

> We'll be glad to hear feedback about this!

I have no strong opinions about this, but the above seems to make
sense.

If I should make changes to configure, then pls let me know.

-k
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


[Rd] hypot(x,y) instead of pythag(a,b) ?!
Kurt Hornik