[Mpi-forum] Indices

[William Gropp]

Yes, these need to be fixed.  

Mixed case in the function index means either the C binding name (or Fortran08 name) was used where the language-independent name should be used, or \func or \mpifunc were used for a language-binding-specific name (which is incorrect macro usage).  Chapter authors need to fix this.  There as also some non-functions in the function index; those must be fixed.

Example index entries need to be checked; I added a bunch to context as many examples were missing the index entries (made with \exindex).

I think it is ok for removed and deprecated names to show up in the index.

Bill


William Gropp
Director, Parallel Computing Institute
Deputy Director for Research
Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies
Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign



On Jul 19, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> After reviewing the indices, I found a few issues:
> 
> - MPI_Type_struct and MPI_TYPE_EXTENT show up in the example indices. This should not happen as they are removed.
> - I'm not sure if removed and deprecated routines should show up in the Function Index, but right now, they do.
> - similarly in the MPI Callback Function Prototype Index
> - similarly in Constant and Predefined Handle Index
> - in the function index, many routines show up twice (caps and no caps) and some show up only with no caps.. All should be caps (I think).
> 
> Do the chapter authors need to fix those in their chapters?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mohamad
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum