On 12/02/2019 06:44, Lætitia Avrot wrote:
> Hi Andrew and Tom,
>
> I considered that option before writing my patch but I refrained for 2
> reasons:
>
> - There is no consensus about how to name these functions. The
> standard 8000-2 goes with arsinh, arcosh and artanh,
> but you will find easily arcsinh, arccosh and arctanh or even
> argsinh, argcosh and argtanh. In IT, the names asinh,
> acosh and atanh are commonly used too. We might implement them with
> asinh, acosh and atanh names and add
> aliases if SQL standard decide to add it under other names though.
[...]
>
> Le dim. 3 févr. 2019 à 16:12, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> a écrit :
>
> Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk
> <mailto:andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>> writes:
> > The spec doesn't require the inverse functions (asinh, acosh,
> atanh),
> > but surely there is no principled reason to omit them?
>
> +1 --- AFAICS, the C library has offered all six since C89.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
[...]
I can only remember coming across the asinh, acosh, and atanh forms. In
45 years of programming.
Cheers,
Gavin