Subject: Re: Errors in May 5 version

From: Steve Otto <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 15:05:51 -0700

I like Marc's suggestions, they seem sensible.

	He writes:
It would be useful, if possible, to put in the
journal article a pointer to the erata.

	I will ask the MIT Press person right now if this will be easy.

	--Steve Otto

---

From: William Gropp <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 17:32:04 -0500

I agree with Marc's suggestions; I'd like to discuss them with respect to 
the 3 bugs I submitted.

(1) Bindings.  Presumably these are syntatic errors caused by the automatic
process by which the bindings were constructed (Rusty could confirm this).  By
Marc's reasoning, this is a syntactic correction.

(2) int replaced MPI_Aint.  The text is incorrect, so a change is needed.
Since a previous version was correct (by using MPI_Aint), I'm not sure that
discussion is required, but perhaps that is the safest course.  Marc, since
this is your chapter, what do you prefer?

(3) DOUBLE PRECISION instead of DOUBLE COMPLEX.  A clear example of a simple
error.  Steve, I believe you are the chapter editor for terms and conventions.

There is one other issue.  The online, WWW version should be correct since
many people are using it as a reference manual.  There are three obvious
possibilities:

   (a) The WWW version is up-to-date, with corrections
   (b) The WWW version is not up-to-date, but has pointers to errata
   (c) The WWW version is not up-to-date and reflects the last published 
       version; it is necessarily incorrect.

(I'll admit that the descriptions may seem a little loaded but I believe that
they are precise and will reflect the way the WWW version is viewed, since
while paper documentation is expected to be out-of-date, online documentation
is not (even though it often is).)

We can maintain any and all of these.  Which should we do?  My preference is
for (a), possibly merged with (b).  In other words, include the corrections
along with some indication that this reflects a correction from the errata.
Comments?

Bill