[MPI3 Fortran] MPI Fortran bindings

Jeff Squyres jsquyres at cisco.com
Fri Jun 5 13:50:50 CDT 2009

On Jun 5, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Aleksandar Donev wrote:

> > Then I guess I don't see how this notation is different than what  
> has
> >   been in the MPI spec for the last 15 years:
> Exactly. So how does it resolve any problems or in any way add  
> anything
> useful?

I thought the resounding answer from this group was that specifying  
the intent stuff *was* useful...?  Did I mis-read that?

I honestly don't care how the (void*)-like behavior is denoted; that's  
the advice that I'm asking from this group.

If you're saying that we shouldn't list the intent, then there's  
little reason to change the way the bindings are shown at all -- the  
15-year old notation is fine, I guess.

Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems

More information about the mpiwg-fortran mailing list