[MPI3 Fortran] WG mission statement / bullets

[Malcolm Cohen]

BTW, my web browser complains about the security certificate on the referenced 
web page.

(この Web サイトで提示されたセキュリティ証明書は、信頼された証明機関から発行されたものではありません。)

Steve Lionel wrote:
> Hubert Ritzdorf wrote:
>
>> I think that the Fortran Programmers expect that these definitions are made 
>> in Fortran integers and not in C_INT's.
>> They want to use Fortran and not C and they want that the Fortran compiler 
>> features are supported (such as expansion > of integers, reals and double 
>> precisions).
>
> Fortran programmers would be using Fortran integers.  The KIND value just 
> makes sure that they're the right kind of Fortran integers.  I am not asking 
> Fortran programmers to code in C and the fact that C_INT is used would be 
> invisible.  This is just a standard-conforming way of saying "give me this 
> platform's default integer kind".

Well, actually, "give me the kind that matches this platform's C ``int''."

As you wrote in another message, Fortran's default integer is not always 32-bit.

> Using generics, it's possible to define a routine that accepts different 
> signatures, if that seems appropriate.  But the need for kind values remains.

I'd prefer us to provide generics (and not specifics) with the generics taking 
both 32-bit and 64-bit integer for the "default" integer arguments.

Craig Rasmussen wrote:
> I've been back and forth on this (as well as a few others I think).
> I'm currently leaning toward using default integers.

Well, that's just MPI_INT_KIND=KIND(0).  It doesn't mean it should not be 
documented if we are going to have specifics (which I obviously don't favour). 
If we have specifics and not generics we absolutely want MPI_INT_KIND so people 
can write stuff that works with and without -double.  And we surely need 
MPI_SIZE_KIND for buffer sizes in any case, right?

- - - - A couple of random comments...

I don't understand how or why we are ruling out optional arguments when there 
are optional arguments in the interface examples further down the page.

I also don't understand
  "A discussion occurred at the April 2009 meeting about module use: should the 
module name be MPI3 or just MPI as it is now. Decision is to that the module 
name should be MPI to allow for continuity of users code. It is a quality of 
implementation issue of just what is in the module. "
...?  I thought things were being changed, so how is this continuity preserved? 
I mean, if we are switching from magic integers to 
handles/opaque-type-constants, that's going to change the interface, right?  Or 
is the user going to write MPI3_Recv instead of MPI_Recv (i.e. the "3" is on 
every call)?

Cheers,
-- 
......................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.