On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com>wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > > If this approach is to be adopted by other components (and perhaps other > MPIs), then it would be important for the enumeration variable name to be > derived in a UNIFORM way: > > <framework>_<component>_SOMETHING > > Without a fixed value for "SOMETHING" somebody will need to read sources > (or documentation) to make the connection. > > This is a good point; we got a similar piece of feedback from the MPI > tools group. > > How about naming the state variable "<framework>_<component>"? And then > that will apply to all "<framework>_<component>*" pvars. Hmm... not sure how that jives with "principle of least astonishment". Other than that "_SOMETHING" == "" seems like a solution that totally avoids the problems associated with words like "device" (which might imply something about h/w architecture) or "instance" (with potential implications regarding s/w architecture). So, on balance: +0.9 (my other 0.1 goes to "_enum" for "principle of least astonishment".) -Paul -- Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov Future Technologies Group Computer and Data Sciences Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
