Greg Lindahl wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 06:03:15PM -0500, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
>>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.
> Ah. But no one ever suggested that, so we're all set -- it's an
Sorry, I got lost in the catch up.
> In any case, I think this sort of discussion is more of an
> implementation detail than a fundamental thing that would obviate
> having an ABI... either way you're going to want to pick the right
> contents for mpi.h. Apple or Orange, it's the same committee process.
True. There will be choices and you can still lobby so that your
translation layer is as empty as possible. We can either do it
Kyoto-style where we trade translation points or we can do it US-style
and fight on the beach in Capri...