[SYCL][Doc] Update spec wording regarding C++20 #16713
Conversation
We decided in KhronosGroup/SYCL-Docs#667 to use this wording for SYCL APIs that require C++ features added after C++17. The next version of the SYCL spec formally adopts this wording in KhronosGroup/SYCL-Docs#680.
| @@ -154,8 +152,7 @@ std::span<std::byte> ext_oneapi_get_content_backend_view() const; | |||
| ---- | |||
| !==== | |||
|
|
|||
| Available only when the compiler defines the `__cpp_lib_span` feature-test macro | |||
| (which is defined in {cpp}20 and higher). | |||
| Minimum C++ Version: {cpp}20 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be in italics?
| Minimum C++ Version: {cpp}20 | |
| _Minimum C++ Version:_ {cpp}20 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking it would not be in italics. In the core SYCL spec, our style is to add an initial paragraph for APIs that are deprecated, and that initial paragraph is not in italics. For example:
.[apidef]#platform::has_extension#
[source,role=synopsis,id=api:platform-has-extension]
----
bool has_extension(const std::string& extension) const
----
Deprecated by SYCL 2020.
{note}Use [api]#platform::has# instead.
{endnote}
_Returns:_ The value [code]#true# if this platform supports the extension
queried by the [code]#extension# parameter.
A platform only supports an extension if all associated devices support that
extension.
Returns [code]#false# if this platform does not contain any devices.
My thought was that the "Minimum C++ version" paragraph would be similar to the "Deprecated by" paragraph.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, I see. My preference here would be to adopt a consistent style for all paragraphs rather than mixing the old and new styles. I find the paragraph sub-headings really helpful when reading the specification, so something like a "Deprecated: SYCL 2020" looks better to me.
But I don't think we can solve this here, so I'll approve. But maybe we should talk to some other folks to see if anybody else has a preference either way.
|
@intel/llvm-gatekeepers can this be merged? It seems like the CI failure is unrelated. |
We decided in KhronosGroup/SYCL-Docs#667 to use this wording for SYCL APIs that require C++ features added after C++17. The next version of the SYCL spec formally adopts this wording in
KhronosGroup/SYCL-Docs#680.