[J3] work on F202X at #217?

[Steve Lionel]

I’d say it was subsumed by generics/templates.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:46 PM Van Snyder via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 13:00 -0400, Steve Lionel wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:46 PM Van Snyder via J3
> > <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> >
> >         On Fri, 2018-07-20 at 22:46 +0000, Bill Long via J3 wrote:
> >
> >         > 2) The parts of 18-156 that were NOT discussed at Berkeley:
> >         >
> >         >       A fairly long list that all got positive votes from
> >         J3.  These
> >         > are basically the “US proposal”.
> >
> >         A topic at 215 that is not listed in 18-156 was "support for
> >         containers."
> >
> >         Was this overlooked at 216, voted down while I wasn't looking,
> >         quietly pushed off the table by somebody's cat, or folded into
> >         something else, say "generics?"
> >
> >
> > My notes from 215 say that we considered containers in paper 142 and
> > the SV to NOT do containers but instead “add more general capabilities
> > that allow implementation of containers by users” was 10/0/0. My cat
> > was out of the room at the time.
>
> That was my recollection too.  I carefully wrote "support for
> containers" not "do containers."  The "support for containers" topic was
> not in 18-156.  So where is this 10/0/0 topic now?
>
> >
> >
> > Steve
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20180724/a2682853/attachment.html>