InfoDev review of API section

bdmoore1 commented 5 months ago

I reviewed the API section. There were some terms that did not match up so I changed them. For example C-API is not how Python uses the C API name so I removed the - .

I will submit separate PRs for these sections: beginners_guides, contributor_guides, and user_guides.

[x] Have you provided a meaningful PR description?
[ ] Have you added a test, reproducer or referred to an issue with a reproducer?
[ ] Have you tested your changes locally for CPU and GPU devices?
[ ] Have you made sure that new changes do not introduce compiler warnings?
[ ] Have you checked performance impact of proposed changes?
[ ] If this PR is a work in progress, are you opening the PR as a draft?

bdmoore1 commented 5 months ago

@ndgrigorian @xaleryb I do not have the ability to add reviewers. Please add appropriate reviewers to this PR.

ndgrigorian commented 5 months ago

@ndgrigorian @xaleryb I do not have the ability to add reviewers. Please add appropriate reviewers to this PR.

I've added myself and @oleksandr-pavlyk

coveralls commented 5 months ago

coverage: 87.892%. remained the same when pulling 3deca077c1e0d04bbe32182a25e990479d377c90 on bdmoore1:bdmoore1-api-reference-doc-review into 6ae9f3d6f906dc9d4ff0c63a86d67687d60eea4a on IntelPython:master.

bdmoore1 commented 5 months ago

@oleksandr-pavlyk yes we should standardize the name Python/C API. I will create a DOC Jira and target 2025.0 to complete that task.

IntelPython / dpctl

InfoDev review of API section #1659