[J3] Consistency in conversion functions

[Steve Lionel]

On 4/6/2023 4:09 AM, Jeff Hammond via J3 wrote:
> I appreciate Kurt’s suggestion and I’ll just do that in the future, since I would like the conversion intrinsic name to match the type, consistent with REAL(), LOGICAL() and C.
>
> I would support Malcolm’s #3 if someone proposes it.  Perhaps Steve will be happy with this one too.

I'm just one vote here, nothing more. The 2008 Tokyo meeting (J3/WG5), 
where a COMPLEX intrinsic was discussed, was only my second standards 
meeting. I don't recall that I had any issues with the proposal, but I 
was still learning standards issues. I don't recall what the objections 
to it were then, but I would be inclined to support it for 202Y.

Checking my notes, I see that in 2014 Bob Corbett proposed 
(https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/14/14-204.txt) that CMPLX be enhanced 
to allow CMPLX(X,KIND=) where X is complex; that made it into F2018.

Steve