[Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Wording in MPI standard

[Jeff Squyres]

I think we've done that kind of thing before (i.e., put a blanket statement in the T&C chapter, instead of fixing every individual instance).

Do we want to take an approach like that here?  Or do we want to grep/examine each instance of "should" in the standard?

I think the latter would be better, but recognize that it would be a fair amount of work (that I'm not volunteering to do).


On Nov 27, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Jeff Hammond wrote:

> There's a lot of ambiguity in the definitions of these words in
> different contexts.  If the MPI Forum wants "should" to mean "is
> required to", then such a definition should be explicit in the text.
> 
>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will#Technical_specifications:
> 
> "The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) defines shall and must as
> synonymous terms denoting absolute requirements, and should as
> denoting a somewhat flexible requirement, in RFC documents."
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Rajeev Thakur <thakur at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> If you search for the word "should" in the document, it is used all over the place. And it does not mean "maybe"
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should?s=t
>> 
>> Rajeev
>> 
>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Pavan Balaji wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/27/2012 04:48 AM US Central Time, Jeff Hammond wrote:
>>>> Is it explicitly defined anywhere that "foo has been started" means
>>>> "MPI_I*foo has been called by the appropriate MPI rank" or "sufficient
>>>> matching has occurred such that foo can proceed without additional
>>>> explicit remote activity"?  Perhaps this text would be more clear if
>>>> it were more pedantic in this respect, assuming either of my
>>>> equivalences are correct.
>>> 
>>> I think this needs to be clarified -- I always tell people that it needs
>>> to be matched (even though the standard says it should have "started" --
>>> what does that mean, if matching has started, but not completed, is it
>>> considered "started").
>>> 
>>>> As for language, while "should" isn't legally enforceable in the same
>>>> way that "must" or "shall" are, the MPI standard is not a legally
>>>> binding document and I don't think any MPI implementer wants to be
>>>> known as the jerk that exploits this loophole to create a formally
>>>> standard-compliant implementation that screws over users by violating
>>>> the principle of least surprise in important use cases such as Scott's
>>>> example.
>>> 
>>> I have to agree with Scott here -- "must" or "is required to be" is a
>>> clearer way to describe it.
>>> 
>>> -- Pavan
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Pavan Balaji
>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpi-forum mailing list
>>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpi-forum mailing list
>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Hammond
> Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
> University of Chicago Computation Institute
> jhammond at alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond
> https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum


-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/