Skip to content
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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Pennycook
Copy link
Contributor

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.

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.
@Pennycook Pennycook added the editorial Some purely editorial problem label Feb 14, 2025
@TApplencourt
Copy link
Contributor

TApplencourt commented Feb 14, 2025

Always nice to tiding up!

Previously, the description of information descriptors was spread out across multiple sections and appendices.

This is a stupid remark, but should we remove the other text that has now been consolidated in the new section?

@Pennycook
Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@TApplencourt
Copy link
Contributor

Work for me!
We are Lanister and will pay our technical debt! (Man, this is an old reference...)

----
class __InformationDescriptor__
{
public:
Copy link
Contributor

@TApplencourt TApplencourt Feb 14, 2025

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
editorial Some purely editorial problem
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Explain the rationale for this meta-programming usage.
3 participants