[Mpi-forum] Fortran change for discussion

[Richard Graham]

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: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] 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
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/


_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum