Document new upcxx::experimental namespace
This proposal is an offshoot of issue #25 and PR #328. The following entities are defined in the upcxx
namespace but unspecified:
destroy_heap()
restore_heap()
broadcast_nontrivial()
reduce_all_nontrivial()
reduce_one_nontrivial()
op_add
op_mul
op_bit_and
op_bit_or
op_bit_xor
op_min
op_max
@Dan Bonachea suggested moving this into a upcxx::experimental
namespace. I think that’s a great idea.
For now, we are planning to keep the following unspecified entities in the top-level upcxx
namespace:
say
os_env()
release_version()
spec_version()
As noted in PR #328 comments, the latter two are ECP requirements, and the former two are used extensively in the tests and unlikely to change.
Comments (7)
-
-
reporter This is now in PR 328.
-
Having thought about this further, I now think it makes sense to move
upcxx::say
toupcxx::experimental
, and augment test/util.hpp to declareusing upcxx::experimental::say
(with appropriate version bracketing). This ensures tests can continue to use unqualified say, and avoids spurious breakage of version compatibility for tests.If there are no strong objections to this idea, I'll pursue adding it to PR 328.
If it works well, I might do the same for
os_env
-
reporter Agreed.
-
- changed title to Document new upcxx::experimental namespace
- changed component to Documentation
Merge of pull request #328 into develop @ 0e5f91c has made the suggested implementation changes.
Converting this issue into a documentation issue to decide if/how to document anything about this new experimental namespace.
I suggest we add something in docs/implementation-defined.md to at least explain the existence of the
experimental
anddetail
namespaces, and the caveats associated with each (the ChangeLog has some text in this direction). We could optionally also add sketches of selected experimental interfaces with appropriate caveats. -
- changed milestone to 2021.9.0 release
Mass roll-over of open issues to next release milestone
-
reporter - changed status to resolved
Documentation done in PR 361.
- Log in to comment
Sounds like a good plan to me, and I'd like to see this in time for the release.
We can either tack it onto PR 328 or do it separately, whichever is more convenient.