[oneDPL] Create a subsection for is_execution_policy type trait #567

akukanov · 2024-08-20T13:49:18Z

This PR describes oneDPL is_execution_policy trait in more detail, and also addresses #558.

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst

Co-authored-by: Dan Hoeflinger <dan.hoeflinger@intel.com>

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst

Co-authored-by: Ruslan Arutyunyan <ruslan.arutyunyan@intel.com>

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst

danhoeflinger

Generally LGTM, optional comment about the decay note.

danhoeflinger

LGTM

rarutyun

Overall, looks good to me. I left some small comments that do look as improvements to me. But you might disagree

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst

rarutyun · 2024-10-09T04:39:18Z

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst

+to the same class template. It is unspecified in which namespace the underlying class template and its specializations
+are defined.


Suggested change

to the same class template. It is unspecified in which namespace the underlying class template and its specializations

are defined.

to the same class template. It is unspecified, which namespace the underlying class template and its specializations

are defined in.

Spellcheckers do not complain :), so I will keep this intact.

Sure, this is small suggestion. As far as I understand "preposition + which" is consider to be poorer English. More common use is "bla-bla, which + <proposition at the end>. Again, not proposing to change that but for my curiosity we could summon a native speaker. @danhoeflinger, could you please share your opinion?

I searched for clarification on this, and I have found that "preposition + which" is considered not poorer but more formal English.

I agree that "in which" is more formal (but a bit awkward), and "which ... in" is less formal, and a "dangling preposition" https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dangling-Prepositions.htm which is a classic English grammar issue.

I was trying to rephrase to avoid the problem, but I think it may make it less clear.

"The location of the underlying class template definition and its specializations is left unspecified."

Another option, avoiding the preposition:
"It is unspecified, which namespace contains the underlying class template definition and its specializations."

Thanks Dan, I like the last suggestion, will apply it.

"It is unspecified, which namespace contains the underlying class template definition and its specializations."

I also like that.

... not poorer but more formal English.

Thanks for clarification

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst

rarutyun · 2024-10-10T06:27:37Z

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst

+to the same class template. It is unspecified in which namespace the underlying class template and its specializations
+are defined.


Sure, this is small suggestion. As far as I understand "preposition + which" is consider to be poorer English. More common use is "bla-bla, which + <proposition at the end>. Again, not proposing to change that but for my curiosity we could summon a native speaker. @danhoeflinger, could you please share your opinion?

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst

rarutyun · 2024-10-10T06:31:18Z

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst

+      struct is_execution_policy { /*see below*/ };
+
+      template <class T>
+      constexpr inline bool is_execution_policy_v = oneapi::dpl::is_execution_policy<T>::value;


Suggested change

constexpr inline bool is_execution_policy_v = oneapi::dpl::is_execution_policy<T>::value;

inline constexpr bool is_execution_policy_v = oneapi::dpl::is_execution_policy<T>::value;

I prefer that order because this is the way it's defined in C++ standard. I don't want to hold this PR because of that issue but if you decide to change it the way I am suggesting, please ping me and I approve this patch once again.

No problem, I will do it. No re-approval is needed, thanks.

Create a subsection for is_execution_policy type trait

ff342a7

akukanov added the DPL label Aug 20, 2024

akukanov requested review from timmiesmith and danhoeflinger August 20, 2024 13:49

danhoeflinger reviewed Aug 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

akukanov and others added 2 commits August 20, 2024 16:37

Use :ref: for internal subsection reference

d8f05eb

Apply the review suggestion

fa0f037

Co-authored-by: Dan Hoeflinger <dan.hoeflinger@intel.com>

danhoeflinger reviewed Aug 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst Show resolved Hide resolved

akukanov added 2 commits August 20, 2024 16:55

Fix HTML build error

7138a94

Change the order of declarations

dab98a2

danhoeflinger mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2024

[onedpl][ranges][productization] Range API productization, MVP plan, Part 1 oneapi-src/oneDPL#1457

Merged

rarutyun reviewed Aug 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

Address review feedback

7f4f416

rarutyun reviewed Aug 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

akukanov and others added 2 commits August 22, 2024 11:21

Apply suggestions

b8a777b

Co-authored-by: Ruslan Arutyunyan <ruslan.arutyunyan@intel.com>

Use C++ and SYCL formatting for in-text notes

f3b68a0

akukanov requested review from rarutyun and danhoeflinger September 5, 2024 21:39

danhoeflinger reviewed Sep 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/execution_policies.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

danhoeflinger approved these changes Sep 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

danhoeflinger approved these changes Sep 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

Cosmetic improvements

0c955d7

akukanov force-pushed the improve-policy-traits branch from b672405 to 0c955d7 Compare October 3, 2024 17:10

rarutyun reviewed Oct 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

Address review feedback

c4a053f

rarutyun approved these changes Oct 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Swap constexpr and inline

eb5b844

danhoeflinger approved these changes Oct 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Rephrase a sentence

ff844ac

akukanov merged commit 61ebe78 into uxlfoundation:main Oct 10, 2024
3 checks passed

akukanov deleted the improve-policy-traits branch October 10, 2024 15:54

akukanov mentioned this pull request Oct 14, 2024

Add testing of oneapi::dpl::is_execution_policy oneapi-src/oneDPL#1901

Closed

adamfidel mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2024

Modify is_execution_policy test to reflect change in specification oneapi-src/oneDPL#1907

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[oneDPL] Create a subsection for is_execution_policy type trait #567

[oneDPL] Create a subsection for is_execution_policy type trait #567

akukanov commented Aug 20, 2024

danhoeflinger left a comment

danhoeflinger left a comment

rarutyun left a comment

rarutyun Oct 9, 2024

akukanov Oct 9, 2024

rarutyun Oct 10, 2024

akukanov Oct 10, 2024

danhoeflinger Oct 10, 2024

danhoeflinger Oct 10, 2024

akukanov Oct 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

rarutyun Oct 10, 2024

rarutyun Oct 10, 2024

rarutyun Oct 10, 2024

akukanov Oct 10, 2024

		to the same class template. It is unspecified in which namespace the underlying class template and its specializations
		are defined.

	constexpr inline bool is_execution_policy_v = oneapi::dpl::is_execution_policy<T>::value;
	inline constexpr bool is_execution_policy_v = oneapi::dpl::is_execution_policy<T>::value;

[oneDPL] Create a subsection for is_execution_policy type trait #567

[oneDPL] Create a subsection for is_execution_policy type trait #567

Conversation

akukanov commented Aug 20, 2024

danhoeflinger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

danhoeflinger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rarutyun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

akukanov Oct 10, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

akukanov Oct 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading