Your comment sounds alot like what Stefan said: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-users/UvBff9QVKaA/P10-LRLezCUJ
I admit I don't fully appreciate why this is a *technical* problem. Most scoping rules would dictate that you should be referring to the *most local* version of the value. In your case bar would come from module Foo. On the other hand, I can envisage a scary situation arising by adding variables to the Foo module *after* the code for Baz has been completed & verified. To avoid this potentially disastrous event: the Julia compiler might have to err out. On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 3:00:21 PM UTC-5, Patrick O'Leary wrote: > > I know this is something that's come up before, and I think rejected--I > think because it causes conflicts with multiple dispatch? But I can't seem > to find the thread(s). > > I can't create a hard conflict in a quick mental search for an example, > but I can create some level of confusion: > > module Foo > bar::Int = 1 > end > > module Baz > bar::Float64 = 27.3 > with module Foo # not current Julia syntax > bar #which bar is this? > end > end >
