[Mpi3-ft] MPI_Comm_validate parameters

Darius Buntinas buntinas at mcs.anl.gov
Thu Mar 3 11:24:46 CST 2011

Yeah.  Maybe something emphasizing the difference between "getting" L_i (i.e., validate) and reading it (get_state).


On Mar 3, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Joshua Hursey wrote:

> So I think this is fine. Since it is a bit awkward, we should have a brief 'rationale' talking about why we went with this semantic.

More information about the mpiwg-ft mailing list