oneapi-src
[oneDPL] + remove gcd implementation and it's usage; include gcd and lcm from std namespace
Let's start writing some meaningful descriptions to PRs. What's the motivation for this change, and why we think it's appropriate? Ruslan asked: "Is there any precedence for those functions not being in modern C++ compilers with C++17 support?" and I see no answer to this question here.
@rarutyun, @MikeDvorskiy, @akukanov could you please approve this PR ?
@rarutyun, @MikeDvorskiy, @akukanov could you please approve this PR ?
Sorry, I cannot, because from my understanding that's not what we agreed on. During the discussion we said that there are two ways of writing those comments:
- in-place (for every function)
- one comment for the header. I believe Sergey, you said that you want to write comments in place, but what I see in the something intermediate between to approaches I've described above.
You have one comment but it's at the beginning of the header it's somewhere. When I proposed the wording for the comments I assumed it's supposed to be in-place. But in that case I would prefer having two comments (one per function).
If you put a comment as it is at the beginning of the header (effectively making it one per header) I think the wording should be slightly modified.
@rarutyun, @MikeDvorskiy, @akukanov could you please approve this PR ?
Sorry, I cannot, because from my understanding that's not what we agreed on. During the discussion we said that there are two ways of writing those comments:
- in-place (for every function)
- one comment for the header. I believe Sergey, you said that you want to write comments in place, but what I see in the something intermediate between to approaches I've described above.
You have one comment but it's at the beginning of the header it's somewhere. When I proposed the wording for the comments I assumed it's supposed to be in-place. But in that case I would prefer having two comments (one per function).
If you put a comment as it is at the beginning of the header (effectively making it one per header) I think the wording should be slightly modified.
Current comment state was made by me like @akukanov proposed, as far as I understood his proposal.
Current comment state was made by me like @akukanov proposed, as far as I understood his proposal.
It was Mikhail's proposal, actually, as he said "I would place the comment directly before gcd and lcm implementations.". But yes, the patch matches my understanding of that. And I think that the exact placement of the comment(s) is not really so important. and is not worth further discussion. So I am OK with this patch and approve.