Re: Comment on new INTENT paragraph

Dick Treumann (treumann@kgn.ibm.com)
Tue, 13 May 1997 15:13:50 -0400

Jeff Squyres wrote:

> Can't we get a compromise by removing the clause, p5 32-36: "There is one
> special case -- if an argument is a handle to an opaque object (these
> terms are define din Section 2.5.1), and the object is updated by the
> procedure call, then the argument is marked OUT. It is marked this way
> even though the handle itself is not modified -- we use the OUT attribute
> to denote that what the randle references is updated."

It is not the statement above which is the problem. It is the fact that
in MPI 1.1 at least, this statement guided those who put IN/OUT/INOUT
labels on arguments. I have a good idea how to decide when a function's
parameter is const and when it is not. I do not really understand how
to judge "what the user perceives as changing". Did that phrase go into
the document somewhere?

Dick

-- 
Dick Treumann                               IBM RS/6000 Division
(Internet) treumann@pok.ibm.com             Poughkeepsie, NY
(VNET)     TREUMANN at KGNVMC               Tel: (914) 433-7846
(internal) treumann@windsurf.pok.ibm.com    Fax: (914) 433-8363