InfoDev review of API section

[bdmoore1]

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.

• 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]

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

[ndgrigorian]

@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]

coverage: 87.892%. remained the same
when pulling 3deca07 on bdmoore1:bdmoore1-api-reference-doc-review
into 6ae9f3d on IntelPython:master.

[oleksandr-pavlyk]

Thank you @bdmoore1 for the changes! They look good to me now.

As a side note, should we be using Python/C API as in https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/index.html, or Python C API as in the document?

If the change is needed, let's do it in a separate PR.

[bdmoore1]

@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.

[ndgrigorian]

LGTM