> Before worrying about finding a shortening scheme which is satisfactory,
> I would like to know how many of us are strongly opposed to slightly
> breaking the new naming rules (the same way they are already broken by
> MPI_SEND). Personally, I am not opposed to it.
The difference is that MPI_SEND is already written in stone. The
majority of MPI programs that are already in existence most likely use
some form of MPI_?SEND. Therefore, it really couldn't be renamed
without breaking existing MPI code. But since all the MPI-2 names are
not fixed yet, there should be an attempt to make them conform to the
rest of MPI-2 rather than be different. Since MPI is a standard, it
would certainly seem to make sense that it should be consistent with
itself, no?
Also, the name will include the "File" in the C++ binding anyway. It
won't be in the formal name, but it is in the scoping. So if the IO
names are not fixed, the bindings between C and Fortran will be
"different" from the C++ bindings.
I'm not attached to the shortening scheme that I proposed earlier, but
if 30 characters is "not too long", yet 35 is, I fail to see a major
difference. :-)
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} squyres@cse.nd.edu
{+} Perpetual Obsessive Notre Dame Student Craving Utter Madness
{+} "I came to Notre Dame for 4 years and ended up staying for a decade."