[mpi3-coll] specified in or implied by

[Torsten Hoefler]

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 12:17:06PM -0800, Adam Moody wrote:
> Several folks mentioned that this line in the NBC intro is wordy:
>    "Completion does not imply that other processes have completed or  
> even started the operation unless otherwise specified in, or implied by,  
> the description of the operation."
> I think a good solution here is to borrow from the existing collectives  
> intro (see below).
> -Adam
>
> From p 2, lines 22-24 we have
>    "It does not indicate that other processes in the group have  
> completed or even started the operation (unless otherwise implied by in  
> the description of the operation)."
>
> First, drop the extra preposition in this text (typo from original)
>    "implied by in"  -->  "implied by"
>
> Second, borrow this wording for NBC on p 50, lines 7-8.
> Change:
>    "Completion does not imply that other processes have completed or  
> even started the operation unless otherwise specified in, or implied by,  
> the description of the operation."
> To:
>    "Completion does not indicate that other processes have completed or  
> even started the operation (unless otherwise implied by the description  
> of the operation.)"
that's fine with me too - I updated rev. 3. All three versions say the
same thing.

Best,
  Torsten

-- 
 bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ -----
Torsten Hoefler       | Postdoctoral Researcher
Open Systems Lab      | Indiana University    
150 S. Woodlawn Ave.  | Bloomington, IN, 474045, USA
Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608