You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
thrust::optional supports references (thrust::optional<T&> works) while cuda::std::optional does not, since std::optional does also not support them. This is changing with P2988 which was designed approved in September 2024, but has not been voted into the C++ standard yet.
In #3307 we deprecated thrust::optional with a message pointing users to cuda::std::optional, and backported it to CCCL 2.8: #3393. However, now users see a deprecation warning pointing them to a less capable alternative. This should be fixed. As we want to remove thrust::optional, we should support cuda::std::optional<T&>. The question is when.
We only have limited time left to come up with an implementation and backport it to 2.8. It's more likely we can get it done for 3.0. However, this would leave users of CCCL 2.8 with a deprecation warning on thrust::optional<T&> with no alternative. Is this acceptable?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
thrust::optional
supports references (thrust::optional<T&>
works) whilecuda::std::optional
does not, sincestd::optional
does also not support them. This is changing with P2988 which was designed approved in September 2024, but has not been voted into the C++ standard yet.In #3307 we deprecated
thrust::optional
with a message pointing users tocuda::std::optional
, and backported it to CCCL 2.8: #3393. However, now users see a deprecation warning pointing them to a less capable alternative. This should be fixed. As we want to removethrust::optional
, we should supportcuda::std::optional<T&>
. The question is when.We only have limited time left to come up with an implementation and backport it to 2.8. It's more likely we can get it done for 3.0. However, this would leave users of CCCL 2.8 with a deprecation warning on
thrust::optional<T&>
with no alternative. Is this acceptable?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: