(j3.2006) Spreadsheet from meeting 167

[Van Snyder]

In 2004, we put some focused effort into evaluating proposals for the
2008 work plan.  These were all discussed in plenary sessions (see item
1.4 in the minutes, 04-272r1).  There was no subgroup veto.  I reviewed
the spreadsheet 04-265r1.xls, and noticed that the following proposals
had overwhelmingly positive sympathy, but were not added to the 2008
work plan, mostly because it was thought that other work was more
desirable.  Many were judged to be "small."  I believe that 04-168
should have been classified "small" instead of "med."  04-273 wasn't
classified, but is probably "small."  04-164 wasn't classified.  It's
pretty obvious what to do, but it would be tedious to dot all the i's
and cross all the t's.

Zero dislike, zero hate:

 Love Like  Paper  Size  Summary
   4    7   04-153 large Parameterized modules
   4    7   04-164       Types as type parameters
   2   11   04-195 med   Generalize vector subscript
   2    9   04-169 small Optional args for defined operators
   1   11   04-227 small Access spec on subprog hdr
   1   11   04-197 large Combine assumed and explicit shape
   0   11   04-220 small Integer part of LOG2
   0   11   04-167 small Protected types
   0   10   04-194 small MultiKind character concatenation
   0   10   04-158 small Construct names local to construct
   0    8   04-168 med   Partial application in interface bodies

One dislike, zero hate:

 Love Like  Paper  Size  Summary
   3    6   04-193 med   .ANDTHEN. and .ORELSE.
   1   10   04-187 small GENERIC statement for interface block
   1    9   04-146 large Create new types from existing types
   1    7   04-163 med   Control intrinsic assignment
   0   13   04-273       Resolve generic without invoking
   0   10   04-179 med   Default value for optional dummy

We decided some time after meeting 167 to replace parameterized modules
with macros.

04-169 was in 12-195, but was vetoed in subgroup.
04-194 was in 12-195, made it out of subgroup, but received lukewarm
support in plenary.
04-168 was in 12-195, but was vetoed in subgroup.
04-187 was in 12-195, made it out of subgroup, and received some support
in plenary.
04-273 was in 12-195, but was vetoed in subgroup.
04-146 was an alternative to typealias, which was briefly in the 2008
work plan.

Is there interest to pursue any of the ones that have not yet been
reconsidered?

Among those who were not in the /data subgroup, is there interest to
consider in plenary the ones, either listed here or in 12-195, that were
vetoed in subgroup?