Downstream precompilation warnings due to new exports

[devmotion]

The new exports of static_first and static_last in #143 cause precompilation warnings in VectorizationBase which already imports StaticArrayInterface.static_first and StaticArrayInterface.static_last:

 ┌ VectorizationBase
│  WARNING: using Static.static_first in module VectorizationBase conflicts with an existing identifier.
│  WARNING: using Static.static_last in module VectorizationBase conflicts with an existing identifier.
└  

Similar problem exists with static_first and static_step in Polyester:

┌ Polyester
│  WARNING: using Static.static_first in module Polyester conflicts with an existing identifier.
│  WARNING: using Static.static_step in module Polyester conflicts with an existing identifier.
└  

Generally, it might be preferable to not use implicit imports in VectorizationBase and Polyester (ie no using Static). However, given that functions of the same name also exist in StaticArraysInterface, I'm also wondering if these additional exports in #143 were intentional in the first place?

[ChrisRackauckas]

@Tokazama

[Tokazama]

I made them exports because they were originally undocumented and were being used elsewhere. I believe the ones in StatcArrayInterface are the same method and I wasn't having issues when I last tested. When I get back to work I can take a closer look and see if this is code replication in vectorization libraries and maybe trim down some code.

[devmotion]

were being used elsewhere.

Did you check whether these use cases were problematic, ie should have used StaticArrayInterface.static_first etc.? It still feels weird (wrong?) to me that two packages from the static ecosystem export functions of the same name that are not identical.

[devmotion]

Separate from the question which package should export what, I opened JuliaSIMD/VectorizationBase.jl#124 and JuliaSIMD/Polyester.jl#166 to generally fix implicit imports in the two affected packages.

[Tokazama]

Did you check whether these use cases were problematic, ie should have used StaticArrayInterface.static_first etc.? It still feels weird (wrong?) to me that two packages from the static ecosystem export functions of the same name that are not identical.

They definitely shouldn't be defining two separate methods. I'll try to get a fix out today.