Thanks for the quick response. I tried to use a bare docstring now: https://github.com/ufechner7/NaNMath.jl/blob/doc/src/NaNMath.jl <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fufechner7%2FNaNMath.jl%2Fblob%2Fdoc%2Fsrc%2FNaNMath.jl&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG38FYdeMOozyHFbfm_4eLetDv2vg>
Now the error message is gone, but also their is no content in the documentation any more: If I type: ?NaNMath.sum I get an empty reply, both in 0.3 and 0.4. Any idea? Am Montag, 17. August 2015 17:24:58 UTC+2 schrieb Michael Hatherly: > > https://github.com/MichaelHatherly/Docile.jl/issues/51 > > It’s a bug in the @doc macro in Docile, which I recently fixed in Base > but haven’t backported to Docile since it only applies to direct use of > @doc. If you use bare docstrings, ie. without @doc, which are supported > by Docile as well as in Julia 0.4 then you won’t have this problem. Bare > docstrings will be the preferred way to document things going forward > anyway after 0.4 is released, unless you need to do more complex > documentation tasks. > > — Mike > On Monday, 17 August 2015 17:05:52 UTC+2, Uwe Fechner wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I tried to add documentation to a function of a package, that is working >> fine without documentation on 0.3 and 0.4. >> >> This is my code: >> https://github.com/ufechner7/NaNMath.jl/blob/doc/src/NaNMath.jl >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fufechner7%2FNaNMath.jl%2Fblob%2Fdoc%2Fsrc%2FNaNMath.jl&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG38FYdeMOozyHFbfm_4eLetDv2vg> >> >> If I try to load it with "using NaNMath" I get the following error: >> >> julia> using NaNMath >> ERROR: error compiling anonymous: error in method definition: function >> Base.sum must be explicitly imported to be extended >> in include at ./boot.jl:245 >> in include_from_node1 at ./loading.jl:128 >> in reload_path at loading.jl:152 >> in _require at loading.jl:67 >> in require at loading.jl:51 >> while loading /home/ufechner/.julia/v0.3/NaNMath/src/NaNMath.jl, in >> expression starting on line 21 >> >> It works fine with Julia 0.4. >> >> It also works fine, if I remove the lines with the documentation above >> the function sum. >> >> Any idea? >> >> Is it a bug in docile, or is it just a bad idea to define a function >> with the same name as a function in base in a package? >> >> Any hints welcome. >> >> Uwe Fechner >> >
