Christopher Rackauckas

You can already do this with OrdinaryDiffEq.jl integrators as shown in the benchmarks like https://docs.sciml.ai/SciMLBenchmarksOutput/v0.2/MOLPDE/allen_cahn_spectral_wpd/. So I'm not understanding the question?

There's already many split step schemes, many of which are adaptive: https://docs.sciml.ai/DiffEqDocs/latest/solvers/split_ode_solve/#OrdinaryDiffEq.jl.

Makes sense, yes we should add it and try it out.

Some things to read, especially from R's global warning system, which I think has done the best for user-level toggling of messaging: * https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11239428/how-to-change-warning-setting * https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/base/html/warning.html * https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/base/versions/3.6.2/topics/warnings * https://adv-r.hadley.nz/conditions.html...

Yes, it should all compile out when the logging isn't used. That's pretty essential and would break static compilation if that isn't setup. So that's definitely in the requirements.

There are SciMLSensitivity/DiffEqFlux downstream tests that would've required its accuracy.

Needs tests

> does the Tsit5 symbol come from OrdinaryDiffEqTsit5, which is then dispatched on in the extension? What about solvers that need more complicated constructors, you then start to need to...

> I guess we have no idea when a solution to https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/55516 could drop? I was told today that it's unlikely to happen in v1.13, and so probably not within...

Go away registrator, not now. Read the room.