With the introduction of public by @Lilith , many packages will want to mark their unexported public symbols that way. Since public is only available in Julia 1.11, the current recommended way to do this in 1.10 is with the Compat.jl package. Before we add it everywhere, I’m wondering if there are an…

Why not just do macro public(ex) if VERSION >= v"1.11.0-DEV.469" args = ex isa Symbol ? (ex,) : Base.isexpr(ex, :tuple) ? ex.args : error("something informative") esc(Expr(:public, args...)) else nothing end end @public x, y ? I strongly doubt this is worth br…

[image] nhz2: When 1.11 comes out, why should packages try and support 1.10? LTS

[image] gdalle: Before we add it everywhere, I’m wondering if there are any negative side effects to it? Maybe a tiny (pre)compilation time, which you can just benchmark if you are worried about it. The benefits (cleaner, easier to maintain code) easily outweigh it IMO.

I thought so too at first, but I got worried after some people asked me to remove the SparseArrays stdlib from DifferentiationInterface.jl because it adds 300ms of load time ^^ Didn’t think stdlibs would be such a sensitive issue.

Why that macro, and where to put it? Or why not the subtly different public macro (I’m not sure which is better, and it also has a bit more code) in the (“unpopular”) unregistered package: JuliaLang/Public.jl/blob/a0e40de2b67a255dee7ffdf392e7b794eb49d44f/src/Public.jl#L9-L19 …

Why that macro … So that you can use public on versions that support it without dropping support for old versions? and where to put it? In your package if you really feel the need to use public and support old versions. Or why not the subtly different public macro (I’m not sure which is bet…

[image] Palli: in the (“unpopular”) unregistered package AFAIK that did not go anywhere and recommended solution is either Compat.jl, or manually including the macro (as in the examples above). see the discussion for Add the `@public` macro …

I choose to recommend Meta.parse over manual Expr creation because Meta.parse is more clearly a public API while manual Expr creation is more ambiguously public.

I’m sorry but I still don’t understand why macros or manual parsing would be better than the conditional include suggested earlier. Does anyone have a simple explanation?

I suppose it depends on whether you want to have all your public declarations collected in one file or if you want to declare things public close to their definition.

Is Compat.jl worth it for the `public` keyword?

General Usage

hill September 5, 2024, 1:21pm 25

Some Julia packages include a src/compat.jl file that contains relevant snippets from Compat.jl to avoid a full dependency. You could add this macro to such a file.

Topic		Replies	Views
Exclude parsing of `public` statements in Julia v1.10 CI Tooling codecov , ci	8	251	March 16, 2025
JuliaFormatter, JuliaHub docs, and the public keyword General Usage documenter , juliaformatter	5	255	October 22, 2024
Julia's Release Process Internals & Design	19	2896	September 10, 2019
What does the new "public" keyword actually do? General Usage question	12	3291	July 23, 2024
New Julia LTS? Are many using the current (Julia 1.6) LTS? General Usage	104	7807	January 20, 2024

Is Compat.jl worth it for the `public` keyword?

Related topics