This repo would also be a place to include unit and regression tests, benchmarks, and of course the stdlib Good points, and I don't see a good reason to limit this to pure Fortran implementation. The stdlib could be another repo under /j3-fortran. If it's a request for adding an intrinsic procedure or module to the language, we tag is as stdlib-candidate, and issues that gather strong support by the community can "level up" to experimental implementation in the stdlib. I think a good model in the beginning would be for stdlib candidates to evolve from certain proposals in this repo. Your strong experience with SymPy will come in useful here as well.
More important are the processes that we adopt to elect candidates for stdlib, and how to implement them. If a better name candidate comes up, we'll know. My guess is that it'd be welcome and embraced by most of the community. Such libraries could serve as design examples, and perhaps even contribute implementations toward a dedicated I don't know about the name, for the time being we can refer to it as just standard library, and see if it meets adversity.
There are quite a few projects in this spirit, such as Arjen's flibs and Ondrej's fortran-utils.
Near-immediate quality of life improvement for many application developers like myself.Should we, as the Fortran community, consider working on a non-standard library that would include such procedures that we aim to the propose to the committee for inclusion in the standard? This library, or a subset of it, could over time become a candidate for the Fortran standard library, in addition to built-in intrinsics.
Lack of open source libraries may be a signal that there just isn't great need for such procedures. Reusable and open libraries emerge when the pain is high enough in the community. However, if such intrinsics are really needed, I imagine there'd be an obvious choice of a 3rd party library available. Why so? A common argument for such additions is that they are commonly used and often re-implemented over and over again because they're not available as intrinsics. While I'm personally in support of most such proposals, I often see them as putting the cart before the horse. I'm opening this meta issue with the goal of a broad and open-ended discussion around specific proposals that aim to add intrinsic procedures to the standard.