>>>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:39:48 -0400, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> said:
[...]
jsquyres> Clearly, you don't have to do it that way, but
jsquyres> back in 1996, we were trying to anticipate how
jsquyres> class library authors might want to use the
jsquyres> C++ MPI interface. 8 years is a long time for
jsquyres> a language and the available compilers to
jsquyres> evolve. We probably didn't get everything
jsquyres> right, but we weren't able to predict the
jsquyres> future, either. :-)
As far as I can understand when STL came on the scene very
late in the C++ standardization process it caused a big
shift in the perception of how an interface to a library
could be structured. Clearly Generic Programming and the
idea of "concepts" to define an interface could have a big
impact on how a MPI C++ library could be defined. With more
and more mature C++ compilers available and Generic
Programming becoming widely used I don't think it is too
farfetched to hope or wish for a kind of Technical
Corrigendum for MPI2. To me this adds up to an opportunity
for a new and improved interface for C++.
>> In short, I think that the C++ interface could use an
>> overhaul; maybe a mpi2 namespace?
jsquyres> Mentions of MPI-3 are dreaded among those who
jsquyres> used to be in the Forum. ;-)
Mayby it could be called mpi5, just like the CM5 was a
follow-on to the CM2;)
--
F.
|
