I just did a 'Pkg.add("DataStructures")' and tried the above code. Seeing
the same issue.On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jeff Bezanson <[email protected]>wrote: > This ought to work. The warning is interesting, since the > DataStructures package does (for me at least) define a DataStructures > module. Is it possible DataStructures is not fully installed, missing > files or something like that? > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Madeleine Udell > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm trying to understand the most Julian way to perform a particular > > parallel programming task. Suppose I need function foo from module.jl to > be > > available everywhere. Let's call the following code map_foo.jl: > > > > @everywhere include("module.jl") > > @everywhere using MyModule > > pmap(foo,1:100) > > > > That works fine, except when module.jl itself has other dependencies on > > other modules: > > > > module MyModule > > > > using DataStructures > > export foo > > > > function foo(i) > > return Queue(i) > > end > > > > end # module > > > > In this case, it works to call > > > > julia map_foo.jl > > > > but when I call > > > > julia -p 2 map_foo.jl > > > > I get the following error > > > > Warning: requiring "DataStructures" did not define a corresponding > module. > > Warning: requiring "DataStructures" did not define a corresponding > module. > > exception on exception on 2: 3: ERROR: ERROR: Queue not definedQueue not > > defined > > in > > in foo at /Users/madeleineudell/Dropbox/pestilli_icme_life > > (1)/src/julia/questions/module.jl:7 > > in anonymous at multi.jl:834 > > in run_work_thunk at multi.jl:575 > > in anonymous at task.jl:834 > > foo at /Users/madeleineudell/Dropbox/pestilli_icme_life > > (1)/src/julia/questions/module.jl:7 > > in anonymous at multi.jl:834 > > in run_work_thunk at multi.jl:575 > > in anonymous at task.jl:834 > > > > Does anyone know how I can successfully chain dependencies like this when > > using parallelism? Calling @everywhere on the import call in module.jl > also > > doesn't fix the problem, strangely enough. > > > > Of course, if I could put all my code into shared memory, I'd be much > > happier. I just saw an update adding shared memory arrays, but I don't > know > > if there's a way to get shared memory code! > > >
