Naming Inconsistency for Extension Objects

[bashbaug]

We currently have a naming inconsistency for command buffer and semaphore extension objects:

#ifdef cl_khr_semaphore
    class Semaphore;
#endif
#if defined(cl_khr_command_buffer)
    class CommandBufferKhr;
    class MutableCommandKhr;
#endif // cl_khr_command_buffer

Note the Khr suffix on CommandBuffer and MutableCommand objects but not on Semaphore objects.

Do we want a Khr suffix on these objects, at least while they are extension objects?

If we want some sort of decoration while these are extension objects is a suffix the best mechanism? We could consider a namespace instead, for example cl::khr::CommandBuffer.

[aharon-abramson]

Yes, I prefer the namespace idea.

[Bogumil-Sapinski-Mobica]

!assign

[bashbaug]

Discussed in the July 11th special teleconference. We prefer the namespace idea, if this will work.

We should give thought how the C++ bindings would change if any of these objects became core features sometime in the future.