# Simple Generics **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [June 11, 2023, 5:54pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/simple-generics/5973 "2023-06-11T17:54:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 5
**Author:** ![FortranFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@FortranFan](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/FortranFan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2023, 6:43pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/simple-generics/5973/5 "2023-06-12T18:43:53Z")
> [@certik](#): > > … @FortranFan I can imagine later adding some simpler syntax for this common case, such as the one from the J3 Fortran Proposals repository. The main issue for me is to ensure the feature is in. … @everythingfunctional , @certik: Apologies: please note I miswrote above implying simpler syntax. Actually what I really meant was **simpler semantics**. Consider this simple case brought up by @certik: it is truly debatable whether the `TEMPLATE` construct, as per Fortran 202Y proposal, needs to define a “template” `INTERFACE` therein only to encapsulate what is a templated procedure in `log10_local`, as in the illustration by @everythingfunctional above. Something seriously does **not** appear right here. This requires serious thought and for various Fortran practitioners who are deeply interested in Generics such as @plevold and @shahmoradi et al. to think through this deeply and to give feedback which the Generics subgroup must review. If the underlying aspects such as these are not designed well, there will be **no** later simplification or enhancement viable, the feature will be doomed and a lot of practitioners will not use it. Fortran needs to get Generics right. --- _[View the full topic](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/simple-generics/5973)._