# Flaw with typed enumerators in F202X **URL:** \ **Category:** Language enhancement\ **Created:** [May 10, 2022, 11:22am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/flaw-with-typed-enumerators-in-f202x/3429 "2022-05-10T11:22:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 11
**Author:** ![FortranFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@FortranFan](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/FortranFan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2022, 5:04pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/flaw-with-typed-enumerators-in-f202x/3429/11 "2022-05-11T17:04:54Z")
> [@septc](#): > > I partly share the feeling why it is considered “too complicated” (in short, the request seems too much at once) … It was with papers [**19-230r2**](https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/19/19-230r2.txt) and [**19-231r2**](https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/19/19-231r2.txt) the specific comment about “too complicated” was made. So the sentiment applies even more strongly with `19-229` I suppose. But that’s a shame. There are major. major concerns with such narrow line of thinking re: “too complicated”. And again, it comes back to “[**For whom Fortran?**](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/for-whom-fortran-for-what/3378)” - Is Fortran only meant for some individual coders who have essentially complete autonomy as to the kind of coding they intend to pursue with the “tools” of their interest? And many of whom have their own an ever sliding, `ad hoc` and discriminatory and inconsistent scale as to what is simple or “too complicated”, what they like or find acceptable, etc.? - or does Fortran has a wider, open tent? Think for a moment: reliable programming toward any scientific or engineering aim is an extremely complicated exercise. Also, advancing needs require advanced solutions. That was the very premise of FORTRAN with Backus and team at IBM early 1950s. In contrast to Fortran’s rich legacy or where things are every programming language with advanced features now that are finding both acceptance as well as value in scientific and technical programming, paper `19-229` is nothing complicated, only detailed on one of the simplest features. That circa 202X for a basic facility which will only be available around year 2030 or later, the very notion of going skittish and wimpy at the hint of detail and to settle instead for a half-baked facility that will only be of limited use really, really looks bad for Fortran. > [@septc](#): > > … But looking at the first post of this thread (unscoped vs scoped), the final result seems really oversimplification and could lead to unrecoverable situations. I agree entirely on this. --- _[View the full topic](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/flaw-with-typed-enumerators-in-f202x/3429)._