Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!unixhub!stanford.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!cochiti.lanl.gov!jlg From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status Message-ID: <22689@lanl.gov> Date: 26 Apr 91 16:03:00 GMT References: <1991Apr24.202115.16119@dragon.wpd.sgi.com> <1991Apr25.043355.26420@ariel.unm.edu> Sender: news@lanl.gov Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 22 In article , khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman fpgroup) writes: |> In article <1991Apr25.043355.26420@ariel.unm.edu> prentice@triton.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes: |> |> Gee, good to know only the minor players voted against it. So who voted |> for it? |> |> Everyone else. The formal postmeeting distribution hasn't reached me |> yet, so I'd likely misrepresent someone if I relied on inference. |> However, in the last go round several "minor" players such as IBM, |> Amdahl, Sun, DECUS, and misc. national labs (and several foregin ones) |> voted Aye. Yes. But it would be interesting to know just which of these Aye votes were cast because of support for the language and which were cast just to get the process over with. It has been quite clear for some time that the language itself is cast in concrete. Any change of a substantial nature would be nearly impossible (not sure, but I think a 2/3 majority would have been required). That being the case, what's the point of voting against the present proposal? J. Giles