On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <email@example.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Paul Hargrove <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> If this approach is to be adopted by other components (and perhaps other MPIs), then it would be important for the enumeration variable name to be derived in a UNIFORM way:
> Without a fixed value for "SOMETHING" somebody will need to read sources (or documentation) to make the connection.
This is a good point; we got a similar piece of feedback from the MPI tools group.
How about naming the state variable "<framework>_<component>"? And then that will apply to all "<framework>_<component>*" pvars.
Hmm... not sure how that jives with "principle of least astonishment".Other than that "_SOMETHING" == "" seems like a solution that totally avoids the problems associated with words like "device" (which might imply something about h/w architecture) or "instance" (with potential implications regarding s/w architecture).
So, on balance: +0.9 (my other 0.1 goes to "_enum" for "principle of least astonishment".)
Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove@lbl.govFuture Technologies GroupComputer and Data Sciences Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
devel mailing list