Greg Lindahl wrote:
> Patrick, if you read what both Jeff and I wrote, I believe it's clear
> we both understand that part, because we've both mentioned that
> particular implementation solution. What I was trying to understand
> was why Jeff thought this was a huge nightmare.
What Jeff thought is a nightmare, I believe, is to have to decide a
common interface and then force the MPI implementations to adopt this
interface internally instead of having them translating on the fly.
It's like having a common language in The EU. Either we decide it will
be French and everybody else starts to teach French at school, or we
choose Esperanto, and everybody translate their national language in
Esperanto when they want to deal with another EU member. There would be
a lot of blood on the floor before French is adopted.
> something? Does this somehow save a significant amount of work for
It does not, but the pill is much easier to swallow because nobody has
to fight to try to impose the interface they happen to use. Am I still
drunk and missing something big ?