-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> Reply: Main MPI Forum mailing list <[email protected]> Date: February 16, 2016 at 2:37:57 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <[email protected]> Subject:  Re: [Mpi-forum] Question about MPI_Info set on communicators

...

- "yes" because the user asked for it (i.e., that's the hint, regardless of what the implementation dos with it.

This answer contradicts the most reasonable interpretation of "hints actually used by the system"

See my reply to Jim: if we're supposed to provide the value of *the hint*, that to me sounds like the *user's input* (as opposed to what the system chose to do with that hint).

...

- "no" because the implementation could not provide it - no "foo" key at all because the implementation did not use the hint

I think these are equivalent from a user perspective. In both cases, the user is not getting the "magical_powers"="yes" they requested.

However, my reading of MPI 3.1 6.4.4 p250 says that the keys should be defined, but set to "no".

Ok.

In any case, we need to improve the standard text unless Bill swoops in to tell us we are all idiots and points out text that makes the interpretation unambiguous :-)

I agree it needs to be clarified.  It would be nice if we could clarify it in a way that is compatible with the 3.0 and 3.1 text (so that we don't have to have apps distinguish between 3.0/3.1 behavior and beyond-3.1 behavior). -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/