On Nov 2, 2005, at 5:56 AM, Thilo Kielmann wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:57:22AM -0800, John Shalf wrote:
I prefer 4a1 because it is more readable and the implementation would be quite straightforward. It is also a familiar paradigm for any MPI programmers and anyone who has played with various proprietary Async I/O implementations. (its a very familiar and conventional approach)
I kind of like 4a2 as well from the standpoint of a C++ programmer (even with Andre's syntax corrections). However, the resulting bindings will not be very consistent with the approach we would take for Fortran or C bindings (eg. those would likely look more like 4a1). It is not really much more readable than 4a1. Therefore, I'm uncertain if it is worth fragmenting our approach to bindings in different languages when there is not a clear benefit in terms of readability or implementation complexity.
Taking these arguments together, we should opt for 4a1 ! - more readable - closer to Fortran bindings and other archaic languages ;-)
... gotta keep Tom happy. ;-)