Only export the atomic macro on 1.6. #1097
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
IanButterworth
added a commit
to JuliaLang/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 26, 2024
… considered harmful") (#42080) I feel we are heading up against a "`using` crisis" where any new feature that is implemented by exporting a new name (either in Base or a package) becomes a breaking change. This is already happening (JuliaGPU/CUDA.jl#1097, JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#745) and as projects get bigger and more names are exported, the likelihood of this rapidly increases. The flaw in `using Foo` is fundamental in that you cannot lexically see where a name comes from so when two packages export the same name, you are screwed. Any code that relies on `using Foo` and then using an exported name from `Foo` is vulnerable to another dependency exporting the same name. Therefore, I think we should start to strongly discourage the use of `using Foo` and only recommend `using Foo` for ephemeral work (e.g. REPL work). --------- Co-authored-by: Dilum Aluthge <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mason Protter <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Max Horn <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Matt Bauman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alex Arslan <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ian Butterworth <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Neven Sajko <[email protected]>
KristofferC
added a commit
to JuliaLang/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
… considered harmful") (#42080) I feel we are heading up against a "`using` crisis" where any new feature that is implemented by exporting a new name (either in Base or a package) becomes a breaking change. This is already happening (JuliaGPU/CUDA.jl#1097, JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#745) and as projects get bigger and more names are exported, the likelihood of this rapidly increases. The flaw in `using Foo` is fundamental in that you cannot lexically see where a name comes from so when two packages export the same name, you are screwed. Any code that relies on `using Foo` and then using an exported name from `Foo` is vulnerable to another dependency exporting the same name. Therefore, I think we should start to strongly discourage the use of `using Foo` and only recommend `using Foo` for ephemeral work (e.g. REPL work). --------- Co-authored-by: Dilum Aluthge <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mason Protter <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Max Horn <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Matt Bauman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alex Arslan <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ian Butterworth <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Neven Sajko <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ee09ae7)
KristofferC
added a commit
to JuliaLang/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
… considered harmful") (#42080) I feel we are heading up against a "`using` crisis" where any new feature that is implemented by exporting a new name (either in Base or a package) becomes a breaking change. This is already happening (JuliaGPU/CUDA.jl#1097, JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#745) and as projects get bigger and more names are exported, the likelihood of this rapidly increases. The flaw in `using Foo` is fundamental in that you cannot lexically see where a name comes from so when two packages export the same name, you are screwed. Any code that relies on `using Foo` and then using an exported name from `Foo` is vulnerable to another dependency exporting the same name. Therefore, I think we should start to strongly discourage the use of `using Foo` and only recommend `using Foo` for ephemeral work (e.g. REPL work). --------- Co-authored-by: Dilum Aluthge <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mason Protter <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Max Horn <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Matt Bauman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alex Arslan <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ian Butterworth <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Neven Sajko <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ee09ae7)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.