I would suggest making the first sentence include enumerations and categories:
Enumerations, variables, and categories with the same name in connected
I thought about that. But then you get into an ambiguity: is that sentence saying that if an enumeration and a variable have the same name, they must obey the same semantics (which wouldn't make sense)?
Hence, I just listed variables first, and then said "the others also must obey these semantics...".
Ah, I see what you were doing there. It makes sense now.
...although I see that my sentence after the itemized list induces this same ambiguity. Drat. See below.
We also might need to explicitly state the full names of the GET_INFO routines instead of using a star.
That was exactly what I was trying *not* to do, because then you get in the game of a) listing all the function names, and b) matching them to their respective word ("enumerations", "variables", and "categories").
I wasn¹t sure if ³standardeze² allowed for wildcards which is why I said that. I think it¹s clear, but wasn¹t sure if it was formal enough. The only place I see wildcard notation is in the tools chapter table of constants and in 6.1 for MPI_Comm_*
Do you intend to keep the table we made of the parameters?
I did not intend to, no.
AFTER I WORKED SO HARD ON IT? :-)
Slightly new suggestion:
----- Variables with the same name in connected processes are required to:
* Adhere to the same definition from the MPI implementation * Exhibit the same behavioral semantics * Return the same INOUT and OUT values from the relevant MPI_T_*_GET_INFO function, with the exception that OUT index values may differ between different processes
Similarly, enumerations and categories in connected processes must also obey the above restrictions.
Advice to implementors. The intent of these requirements is to enforce consistent meanings of variables, categories, and enumerations across connected processes. For example, variables describing the number of packets sent across different network device types should have different names to reflect their potentially different meanings. (End of advice to implementors.) -----
I¹m good with this. The only thing I think is weird is the wildcard in the last bullet there, because there is only one relevant GET_INFO routine for variables. It makes sense after I read the next sentence I suppose, but not before. Of course, now that I say that, when I¹m reading this I don¹t necessarily know there is only one GET_INFO routine for variables because I haven¹t gotten to that part yet Kathryn
-- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
_______________________________________________ mpiwg-tools mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-tools