Brad Richardson

Yeah, totally wasn't expecting to merge this until we had a fix for each, but wanted to have concrete examples for discussion. I'll open an issue as well.

> With the current paper which does not allow type bound procedures, how exactly would this be written: Like this: ```fortran template eval_tmpl(T, eval) type, template :: T end type...

> I think we should write how the example in comparison.md would look like using the latest proposal. Agreed. I think the Rust example is probably the easiest to grok...

> Is x.string() in the Rust example a type-bound procedure? Yes. Rust has a feature that Fortran doesn't have. You can add new member functions (type-bound procedures) to existing structs...

> ``` > restriction stringable(T) > type :: T > contains > procedure :: string > end type > interface > function string(x) result(s) > class(T), intent(in) :: x >...

I believe the `restriction` block was somewhat anticipatory of the desire for type-bound stuff, so I'm glad we went with it.

Taking a look at this again, I wonder if we aren't trying to give one name to what are effectively 3 separate aspects of the generics facility we are trying...

Here's how I would recommend to structure the API, if you are set on having a function version with an error argument. * a `subroutine` version that (optionally) performs no...

Thanks for addressing this so quick @perazz . I'm not quite familiar enough with this section of code to review it properly, but it looks like your testing probably works.

Hi @kookma , sure. I don't see any reason it can't be merged as-is.