Skip to content

Conversation

@christiangnrd
Copy link
Member

Given the nature of this package, I think we should encourage explicit import of functionality in the packages that depend on GPUToolbox.

I originally didn't implement this, as Compat.jl adds a bunch of standard library dependencies to this no-dependency package, but then I found https://discourse.julialang.org/t/is-compat-jl-worth-it-for-the-public-keyword/119041/11.

It's not pretty, but it works.

Technically breaking, but all backends already explicity import the GPUToolbox functionality that they use, so it'll just be a matter of me opening PRs to add "0.2" to the compat for each of the packages.

Given the nature of this package, I think we should encourage explicit import of functionality in the packages that depend on GPUToolbox.

I originally didn't implement this, as Compat.jl adds a bunch of standard library dependencies to this no-dependency package, but then I found https://discourse.julialang.org/t/is-compat-jl-worth-it-for-the-public-keyword/119041/11.

It's not pretty, but it works.

Technically breaking, but all backends already explicity import the GPUToolbox functionality that they use, so it'll just be a matter of me adding "0.2" to the compat.
@vchuravy
Copy link
Member

Talking with Tim, we feel that things being exported ought to be the way to go, since we expect all functionality to be useful inside GPU backend packages.

@christiangnrd christiangnrd deleted the 0.2 branch March 10, 2025 13:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants