I'm afraid it's in the manual that way. At least until the next release. Actually, the way I have it listed is confusing - sort of half way between function syntax and opcode syntax.

-David.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jpff@maths.bath.ac.uk [mailto:jpff@maths.bath.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 9:06 AM
> To: groh@irt.de
> Cc: csound@maths.ex.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: taninv2
>
>
> Csoudn does not allow any two-argument functions.  Hence the opcode
> form for taninv2.  What gave you the idea for the syntax
> taninv2(afoox,afooy) ?
>
> ==John
>

>I'm afraid it's in the manual that way. At least until the next release.
>Actually, the way I have it listed is confusing - sort of half way between
>function syntax and opcode syntax.

Is there any clear reason why both forms exist ? Given that they are
both implemented in exactly the same way, what is the reason for
supporting parenthetical expressions for one class of "opcodes" but
not for others ?