> > Unless there's strong
> > feeling otherwise, I'd like to add a sentence or two in the bindings
> > chapter that says that == and != are not defined on MPI::Status objects.
> > OR, if people strongly want it, I'd like to say that == and != *only*
> > compare the three "public" pieces of information.
>
> Either way works for me. If we go with the first option, we can always relax
> the restriction later if and when anyone complains.
Sounds reasonable -- anyone else?
> > 2. The name Comm::Get_topo should change -- it is virtual, and compilers
> > generate warnings that it is masked by Graphcomm::Get_topo. So the name
> > Comm::Get_topo should change to Comm::Get_topo_type.
>
> 'type' is bad, let's try to reserve that for datatypes. Maybe get_topo_kind?
> No, wait, we use 'kind' for something else as well. Hmm...how about
> get_topology?
Get_topology sounds good to me.
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} squyres@cse.nd.edu
{+} Perpetual Obsessive Notre Dame Student Craving Utter Madness
{+} "I came to ND for 4 years and ended up staying for a decade"