Re: data access functions

Rajeev Thakur (thakur@mcs.anl.gov)
Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:41:35 -0600

> Actually, it would not make etype redundant. Etypes are still needed to
> ensure compatibility between the buftype and filetype. I.e., you would

At the last meeting, I believe we decided to relax this restriction.
Now the buftype need only have the same type signature as etype.

If accesses are restricted to multiples of filetype, then filetype
effectively becomes the etype, or vice-versa. Or am I missing
something?

Rajeev