Open twicki opened 6 years ago
thfabian: While I like this syntax, I think there are some open questions.
Currently there is no way to deduce from the stencil definition if a storage is input, output or input-output. Meaning, one would need to inspect the code to deduce this information (the same problem exists also today but with the C function call syntax it is not a necessary information to provide). We would need some notation to distinguish between the cases. Something like:
struct uv : public stencil {
storage<in> u_stage, v_stage, tgrlatda0, tgrlatda1;
storage<out> u_tens_stage, v_tens_stage;
void Do() { ... }
};
@twicki @cosunae Is this still useful?
so this is still possible - especially now that we've upgraded. I think we should keep it around if we feel like this would increase readability
ok, still up then
cosunae: With C++-17 structured bindings feature,(supposedly available in clang 4) https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html
we can improve the semantic of input/output in the function call