Further, if we drop the requirement, do we need a "high quality
implementation" note about making all predefined handles available in
all languages for MPI programmer convenience?� I.e., what reasonable
expectation should an MPI programmer have (particularly for already-
existing codes) about accessing language A's predefined handles in
language B?� Should they *always* call C to do the translation?
For datatypes, this includes the datatype construction routines but
not the communication routines (don't use MPI_INT when sending
INTEGERs with Fortran).� This is what the Opaque Objects text expects.
To me, dropping the requirement sounds like we're just making the
user's life hard -- a Fortran library may have to introduce C code
into their project, and then figure out all the cross-language
compiling and linking stuff (which is not for the meek).
It might be a whole lot simpler to specifically define which
predefined handles need to be available in each language.� The
spectrum ranges from "all languages' predefined handles must be
available in every language" to "only that language A's predefined
handles must be available in language A".� Suggestions?
I'm in favor of explicitly specifying the values and names (because of the need to use alternate names when their might be a conflict, as in the MPI::F_COMPLEX case), and that these have the exact same value as if the handle transfer function was used.