[saga-rg] Task model...

[Thilo Kielmann]

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 ;-)

Thilo
-- 
Thilo Kielmann                                 http://www.cs.vu.nl/~kielmann/