On Jul 31, 2019, at 9:50 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Jul 31, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> wrote:

...

You're ignoring the long tail of consequences here -- what about PMPI/tools? What about other C++ features that we should be using, too? ...?

No scope creep. No slippery slope. Do the one thing we need to go and stop. Leave the rest for MPI-5.

So PMPI/tools are out of scope?

“C++ compilers shall produce the same result as C11 generic.” Why does this need to say anything different for profiling and tools? Is this impossible?

Looking forward to your pull request.

I won’t lose any sleep if we don’t get both C11 and C++ overloads. I’m just saying it shouldn’t be hard to get C++ if we do C11. Jeff