That's very strange, Julia should know your code is wrong, and it may tell
you so, *if* you ask the right question:
julia> code_typed(bar(b, "wat"))
ERROR: no method bar(B,ASCIIString)
Am Sonntag, 6. Juli 2014 13:33:54 UTC+2 schrieb Magnus Lie Hetland:
>
> I just came across a (to me, inexplicable) case of mutual infinite
> recursion in my code. It was pretty well hidden among lots of cruft, so
> I've tried to minimize it. The minimal example still exhibits the behavior,
> but there are a couple of differences (I'll get back to some). Also, I'm
> sure I could have shrunk it even more, but obvious attempts all seemed to
> remove the problem (and give me a more obviously correct error message).
> Anyway, here's the code:
>
> type B
>
> end
>
>
> type X{T}
>
> baz::Vector{T}
>
> end
>
>
> function foo(a, c)
>
> bar(b, c)
>
> end
>
>
> function bar{T}(d::(X{T}, Int), val::T)
>
> foo("err", d[1].baz)
>
> end
>
>
> b = B()
>
>
> function test()
>
> bar(b, "wat")
>
> end
>
>
> test()
>
> When run, this seems to get into an infinite recursion between foo and bar,
> where I would have (with this minimized version) have expected an error
> message of the type
>
> *ERROR: no method bar(B, ASCIIString)*
>
> After all, as far as I can see, no such method exists, and the call inside
> foo ought not somehow create it…?
>
> This is what you get if you, for example, comment out the bar(b, c) call
> or replace its b argument with a local B. Note that in the original, that
> call did *not* (as far as I can tell) refer to a global variable in this
> way. Indeed, the call was inside a loop, and its first argument was the
> iterator variable. But I guess if the dispatch somehow ended up using the
> same function anyway, it doesn't matter.
>
> Also, the test part was originally in a FactCheck context environment, and
> the currently global variable was in the enlosing facts environment. This
> worked, but if I put the call inside a for loop (which was originally, in
> fact, in a different function, in a different module), I once again got the
> same problem.
>
> So I guess I'm asking two things: First, what am I missing here? And
> second, how can I more effectively debug stuff like this in Julia?-) (I.e.,
> figure out why my methods are instantiated in ways I didn't intend, like
> here.)
>
