# Solved marker for Fortran discourse

**URL:** <https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/solved-marker-for-fortran-discourse/2085>\
**Category:** Meta\
**Created:** [October 16, 2021, 5:05am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/solved-marker-for-fortran-discourse/2085 "2021-10-16T05:05:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![certik](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/certik/32/4_2.png) [@certik](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/certik)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2021, 2:57pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/solved-marker-for-fortran-discourse/2085/15 "2021-10-17T14:57:24Z")

</div>

> [@fortran4r](#):
>
> I don’t think this is a justifiable concern.

I think it is definitely a justifiable _concern_, but whether the concern turns true is another matter.

For example I noticed you accepted my answer here as the solution:

[Two questions about stdlib - #3 by certik](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/two-questions-about-stdlib/1856/3)

Which I am of course happy about as a person, but you can see that @milancurcic also provided a valuable piece of answer that I did not mention. And so in that case, the answer is really both of those comments. So I do feel it might be discouraging.

Anyway, as I said, let’s try it and see.

---

_[View the full topic](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/solved-marker-for-fortran-discourse/2085)._