On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:26 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> I guess this is the result different developers with different ideas working on a non consistent way. This is without talking about the fact that we do the same checking in several places, and we duplicate the code in a way that doesn't enforce any consistency. Anyway, now that this problem is highlighted, we should clearly fix it.
When I made that ompi-info list in the last mail, I was thinking the same thing - should we make an opal routine to examine in/exclude kind of behavior? If so, then all those places could just call that instead of replicating the code.
Consolidating the code might also enable doing some kind of simple globbing-like or regexp-like behavior (e.g., "lo*" with the globbing meaning, or "lo.*" with the regexp meaning -- globbing is probably a little easier to implement).
Such a thing might kill 2 birds with one stone...
For corporate legal information go to: