[J3] "bring a list of five features"

[Steve Lionel]

Thanks - I'll add these when I do the next edit, probably tomorrow.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 8:22 PM Vipul Parekh via J3 <
j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:

> Thanks Steve.
>
> Here's my list:
>
> 1. "Eliminate implicit mapping"
> https://github.com/j3-fortran/fortran_proposals/issues/218
>
> 2. "Default KINDs for constants and intrinsics"
> https://github.com/j3-fortran/fortran_proposals/issues/78
>
> 3. "Option to derive an inextensible derived type"
> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/19/19-186.txt
>
> 4. "Add CONSTEXPR procedures in Fortran"
> https://github.com/j3-fortran/fortran_proposals/issues/214
>
> 5. "Proper Enumeration Types in Fortran"
> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/19/19-229.txt or
> https://github.com/j3-fortran/fortran_proposals/issues/46
>
>      Or at least an enumeration type that satisfies use case #2 in paper
> 19-229 i.e., enumerators are class (2) under the "Classes of Local
> Identifiers",
> --- extracted section from 19-229 ---
>
>    that it will be possible to define and consume more than one
>    enumeration types with enumerator members with the same name in a
>    type-safe manner in a given scoping unit e.g.,
>
>       enum :: EOS
>          enumerator :: IDEAL
>          ..
>       end enum
>
>       enum :: COMPRESSOR_EFFICIENCY_SPEC
>          enumerator :: IDEAL
>          ..
>       end enum
>
> --- end section from 19-229 ---
>
> With item #5 above, I sincerely urge WG5 to consider dropping the current
> design of enumeration type from Fortran 202X.  What J3 passed toward
> Fortran 202X as introduced in section 7.6.2 Enumeration types in 22-007r1
> document is too limiting / onerous for practical use in programming and I
> reckon that design will hinder future improvements, particularly with
> respect to class (1) vs class (2) aspects of enumerators.
>
> Thanks,
> Vipul
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 7:11 AM Steve Lionel via J3 <
> j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>
>> There hasn’t been any discussion yet as the lists are still trickling in.
>> There will be a paper that lists the suggestions.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 8:37 PM Vipul Parekh via J3 <
>> j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> Apologies if I missed out today on any discussion/details around "bring
>>> a list of five features".
>>>
>>> How can the "list of five features" be shared/posted toward the
>>> consideration of possible Fortran 202Y extensions?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vipul
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 3:49 PM Steve Lionel via J3 <
>>> j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ..
>>>> Given that we don't have a lot of F2023 business, I'd like to spend as
>>>> much time as possible discussing possible F202Y features. I earlier pointed
>>>> you at a list Ondřej, Zach and Gary had compiled (
>>>> https://gitlab.com/fortran-lang/github_stats/-/wikis/j3-04232022), you
>>>> may have some thoughts of your own, and we know that generics, pointer
>>>> intent and protected components/types will be on the list. I'd like each
>>>> attendee to bring a list of five features you'd like considered and we can
>>>> discuss. We'll start with these and continue to refine the list over the
>>>> next year.
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20220719/e5d06622/attachment.htm>