I think barrier().store() for .aggregate() is very appropriate and fully tells what is going on.
I like both, +1 for one or the other. People also tend to confuse .as() and .store()/.aggregate(). On Tuesday, 20 September 2016, Marko Rodriguez <okramma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I was thinking that store() and aggregate() should simply be “store().” > > store() -> store(local) > aggregate() -> store(global) > > Or: > > aggregate() -> barrier().store() > > Random thoughts… > > Marko. > > http://markorodriguez.com > > > > -- Jean-Baptiste
