Certainly, However, if we can come to some agreement over e-mail, this might be better, so we can put the final doc before folks sooner rather than later. I went back and read the two paragraphs that you mention - why is this additional clarification needed ? I don't follow from the context, though the statement seems innocuous. Rich -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:43 AM To: MPI Forum list Subject: [Mpi-forum] Fortran change for discussion Rich -- Per Jeremiah Willcock's comments, we'd like to add one small clarifying paragraph to the Fortran section. I think it's totally safe, but it's somehow intangibly above the "chapter author can add it himself" threshold for me. Specifically: I think the current text is a little weak, but sufficient. I'm therefore on the fence as to whether the text is *needed* in MPI-3.0 or whether it could be pushed to MPI next. Can this be added to the agenda during the discussion of user comments for the MPI-3.0 draft 2? Here's the specific proposal:

I propose adding the following paragraph after the big paragraph in draft 2 p628:27-44:

Note that the above definition does not supercede restrictions about buffers used with non-blocking operations (e.g., those specified in Section~\ref{subsec:pt2pt-commstart}).

-- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum