-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 69
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve description of information descriptors #725
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Previously, the description of information descriptors was spread out across multiple sections and appendices. This commit introduces a new section and a glossary entry to more clearly explain the concept of an information descriptor prior to detailing the behavior of each SYCL class.
Always nice to tiding up!
This is a stupid remark, but should we remove the other text that has now been consolidated in the new section? |
I did consider this, but I'd rather leave this to a later PR. I wasn't really sure how far to go with it. I like the way that @gmlueck reformatted the description of the various aspects, and I think it probably makes sense to do something similar with information descriptors. But removing the information descriptor appendix and cleaning up those tables seemed like a huge change. |
Work for me! |
---- | ||
class __InformationDescriptor__ | ||
{ | ||
public: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the other part of the spec indent has 2
space, but that ok. Need to make a PR to format all the [source] with clang format, so will be fixed then.
Previously, the description of information descriptors was spread out across multiple sections and appendices. This commit introduces a new section and a glossary entry to more clearly explain the concept of an information descriptor prior to detailing the behavior of each SYCL class.
Closes #410. Addresses feedback originally raised by @nmnobre in #407.
I deliberately added this to the end of the "Common interface" section so that it wouldn't affect renumbering, should we choose to cherry-pick it to SYCL 2020.