Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca!mroussel
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status
Message-ID: <1991Apr25.235111.26282@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
References: <1991Apr24.202115.16119@dragon.wpd.sgi.com> <KHB.91Apr24160852@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 23:51:11 GMT

Before I write anything more, I wish to make it clear that I am just
trying to satisfy my curiosity.  I do not wish in any way to denigrate
the efforts nor to question the motives of anyone on X3J3.

In article <KHB.91Apr24160852@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM> khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM
(Keith Bierman fpgroup) writes:
>   *) I believe that the vote was 26-9 to accept the document as it
>      stood after the edits. Two copies of the marked up document were
>      carried to Walt Brainerd (by two different X3J3 members, to
>      protect against lossage due to a plane crash). Voting against
>      were the reps from: Microsoft, Convex, Cray, Lahey, Harris, DoD,
>      Boeing, Unisys and DEC. It should be noted that an organizations rep
>      votes aye or nay does not necessarily imply that the
>      organization will or won't build, support, use, or fondle "Fortran90".

Why would anyone vote against the standard at this late date?  Are there
outstanding technical problems with the standard which these objectors
felt needed to be adressed before the standard is released?

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
