From: Erez Haba <erezh@XXXXXXXXXXXXX>
Date: January 18, 2008 12:53:23 PM CST
To: "mpi-21@mpi-forum.org" <mpi-21@XXXXXXXXXXXXX>,"mpi-21@cs.uiuc.edu" <mpi-21@XXXXXXXXXXX>
Subject: RE: [mpi-21] Ballot 4 proposal: "static" predefined MPI C++ handles
Reply-To: mpi-21@XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Aren't we also removing the const :)
The text would still be incorrect; in some implementations the MPI::COMM_WORLD is not const qualified.

I suggest removing this sentence. (In C++....)


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mpi-21@XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:29 AM
To: mpi-21@XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: [mpi-21] Ballot 4 proposal: "static" predefined MPI C++ handles

This mail is a proposal for MPI 2.1, ballot 4.

NOTE: This mail is a slight re-formatting of http://www.mpi-forum.org/mail_archive/mpi-21/2008/01/msg00119.html
  to be in ballot proposal format.

In MPI 2.0, page 9, lines 17-18 state:

"MPI provides certain predefined opaque objects and predefined, static
handles to these objects.  The user must not free such objects.  In C+
+, this is enforced by declaring the handles to these predefined
objects to be {\tt static const}."

The "static" in the last sentence should be deleted.

Rationale:

When using namespaces, all the MPI symbols are in the namespace and
objects do not need to be static in a singleton object for the MPI
class.

Specifically: they are static *only* if you are using the singleton
object for the MPI class.  The context for the statement is talking
about the constant quality; the "static" is superfluous -- describing
whether "static" is necessary or not would be too much for this section.

--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems