On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Luke Hoban <lukeh at microsoft.com> wrote:
> More discussion on this here: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309.  CC Roger Andrews who had argued there that this should be 2- and 3- arguments only.

I can't follow the argument chain; it's clear there was more
discussion going on privately.  In
<https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309#c5> Roger argues that
it would be fine to do variadic hypot.  In
<https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309#c8> Jens lightly
objects, but only because of the name.  (He later agrees that it
doesn't make sense to make a new 3-arg hypot function just because of
naming unease.)  Then in
<https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309#c15> Roger suddenly
reverses, and documents the consensus as being just 2/3-arg hypot.
Like Brendan, I'm confused about what the "over-complicated issues
with vector 2-norms" he cites in that comment are supposed to be.

~TJ

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Luke Hoban <lukeh at microsoft.com> wrote:
> More discussion on this here: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309.  CC Roger Andrews who had argued there that this should be 2- and 3- arguments only.

I can't follow the argument chain; it's clear there was more discussion going on privately.  In https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309#c5 Roger argues that it would be fine to do variadic hypot.  In https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309#c8 Jens lightly objects, but only because of the name.  (He later agrees that it doesn't make sense to make a new 3-arg hypot function just because of naming unease.)  Then in https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309#c15 Roger suddenly reverses, and documents the consensus as being just 2/3-arg hypot. Like Brendan, I'm confused about what the "over-complicated issues with vector 2-norms" he cites in that comment are supposed to be.