Open kgryte opened 1 year ago
@kgryte I would like to work on this.
@Pratik772846 I suggest picking one of the associated RFCs for updating a single package. This is a tracking issue.
@Pranavchiku As you've been managing a number of the RFCs and PRs, would you mind updating the OP to match the current state of implementations?
I am not sure if this can be closed now, reopening this.
@Pranavchiku Yeah, I think GitHub unfortunately auto-closes it when we have a PR where the opening comment includes "Fixes #649" or something of the sort. Thanks for opening again!
But I see that I accidentally included "Closes #649" in the merge commit message. Will avoid and see whether that solves it going forward.
No worries, we can open it anytime so that is fine. Updated tracker to latest main.
Small script, not sure if it traps all cases. There can be false negatives but no false positives.
set -ex
# iterate over all folder in <.../math/base/special/*>
for d in <path>; do
# if the folder is a directory
if [ -d "$d" ]; then
# get the name of the folder
folder=$(basename $d)
# check if it has `manifest.json` file
if [ -f "$d/manifest.json" ]; then
# if it has `manifest.json` file, then open it as j_, lookup js_[confs][dependencies] and see if it has "@stdlib/math/base/napi/unary"
# if it has "@stdlib/math/base/napi/unary" then add it to the `names.md`
jq -r '.jsdoc.confs.dependencies["@stdlib/math/base/napi/unary"]' $d/manifest.json
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
echo "- [x] $folder" >> names.md
else
echo "- [ ] $folder" >> names.md
fi
else
echo "- [ ] $folder" >> names.md
fi
fi
done
@Planeshifter You should always check the PR OP to ensure it properly links to issues and does not auto-close tracking issues. I often correct contributor PR OPs as they commonly include errors, including linking to incorrect issues or closing tracking issues.
Updated as per latest develop
@gunjjoshi Would you mind updating the tracking issue with completed APIs? I believe rempio2
, csc
, and maybe others are finished.
Would also be good to add relevant single-precision variants which have been, or still need to be, completed.
Yes @kgryte, I'll do that. But as this issue wasn't opened by me, I am unable to modify or edit this. Should I make a comment consisting of a list of the completed ones, and modifying that each time?
@kgryte The C
implementations of the following functions have been done. They can be marked as completed now.
@gunjjoshi Marked as completed. 🚀
I updated the issue to include missing single-precision variants.
The following single-precision variants can also be marked as completed.
@gunjjoshi Updated!
Description
This RFC proposes adding C implementations to all base special math functions. The purpose of this issue is to serve as a tracking issue for adding C implementations.
Packages
Related Issues
None.
Questions
No.
Other
No.
Checklist
RFC:
.