[J3] work on F202X at #217?

[Van Snyder]

More than ten years ago, I proposed a new feature that could have a huge
benefit.  One use case was enormous.

Nobody ever discussed cost.

All I got was "hell no" with no further explanation, other than "nobody
ever asked us for it" (but I did, and so did Grant Petty, and so did
Vipul Parekh).

On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 17:42 -0600, Dan Nagle via J3 wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> My hope is that proposers of new features will write papers
> with their use-cases.  Subgroup can then discuss them.
> Subgroups bring their use-case papers to plenary, who vote
> an item yea or nay.
> 
> Or something.
> 
> The idea is to find a balance between benefit and cost.
> 
> > On Jul 24, 2018, at 04:49 , Anton Shterenlikht via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:46:13PM +0000, Bill Long via J3 wrote:
> >> Our primary task is to provide more specific
> >> proposals for WG5 to consider for the F202X
> >> content at the Tokyo meeting in 2019.
> > 
> > How much "more specific"?
> > 
> > Take generics/templates as an example.
> > A number of papers, including
> > use cases, have been submitted
> > for 215, e.g. Tom's, Van's, yours.
> > A lot of discussion of these
> > already happened at 215, so what
> > exactly is the procedure for developing
> > this proposed new feature for WG5?
> > Plenary and subgroup discussions
> > of the relative merits of different
> > proposals and how they address the use
> > cases?
> > 
> > Is the aim to have a single agreed
> > proposal for this feature for WG5?
> > Or 2-3 different proposals for WG5 to
> > discuss and vote on?
> > 
> > Is the aim to have a sufficiently
> > detailed proposal on which the users
> > can comment in time for 218? 
> > 
> > Will there be any proposed syntax in 217,
> > or just a description in English of how
> > the new facility will work?
> > 
> > Sorry for potentially stupid questions.
> > Perhaps this is all clear to those who've
> > been there at the beginning of 2018, 2008, 2003, etc.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Anton
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Cheers!
> Dan Nagle
> 
>