Okay; about one issue at a time. *For this sentence* it does not matter what's a common usage for C++ global variables. Some MPI implementations would need to have non-const qualified global objects. For the specific definition (which seems to presented as a C++ comment in the standard) I agree, you want to know what to recommend. Thanks, .Erez -----Original Message----- From: owner-mpi-21_at_[hidden] [mailto:owner-mpi-21_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:58 AM To: mpi-21_at_[hidden] Cc: mpi-21_at_[hidden] Subject: Re: [mpi-21] Ballot 4 proposal: "static" predefined MPI C++ handles On Jan 18, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Erez Haba wrote:

Aren't we also removing the const :) The text would still be incorrect; in some implementations the MPI::COMM_WORLD is not const qualified.

I suggest removing this sentence. (In C++....)

One issue at a time: this proposal is to remove "static" because it is clearly wrong. The "const" issue is different, and [much] more complicated. I am working on another proposal about the "const" issue in this sentence -- I still haven't heard back from you (or others) about what is common usage for C++ global variables (whether it is common to not specify whether they should be const or not).

-----Original Message----- From: owner-mpi-21_at_[hidden] [mailto:owner-mpi-21_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:29 AM To: mpi-21_at_[hidden]; mpi-21_at_[hidden] Subject: [mpi-21] Ballot 4 proposal: "static" predefined MPI C++ handles

This mail is a proposal for MPI 2.1, ballot 4.

NOTE: This mail is a slight re-formatting of http://www.mpi-forum.org/mail_archive/mpi-21/2008/01/msg00119.html to be in ballot proposal format.

In MPI 2.0, page 9, lines 17-18 state:

"MPI provides certain predefined opaque objects and predefined, static handles to these objects. The user must not free such objects. In C+ +, this is enforced by declaring the handles to these predefined objects to be {\tt static const}."

The "static" in the last sentence should be deleted.

Rationale:

When using namespaces, all the MPI symbols are in the namespace and objects do not need to be static in a singleton object for the MPI class.

Specifically: they are static *only* if you are using the singleton object for the MPI class. The context for the statement is talking about the constant quality; the "static" is superfluous -- describing whether "static" is necessary or not would be too much for this section.

-- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

-- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems