I am using .4.0-rc1 and have encountered a similar situation and have 
fairly basic questions about the way .4 loads files. I normally use require 
to load a file of functions from my working directory in to Julia on a 
local computer or a cluster of computers. I was hoping someone would be 
willing to answer a few related questions. 

First, where can I find the .juliarc.jl file?

Second, is there an easier way to load a .jl file from my working directory 
into Julia onto a local computer or cluster of computers that does not 
require editing the .juliarc.fil file? (Editing this file for every project 
seems a little inconvenient). 

Third, will the code loaded from a .jl  always be precompiled in .4? If 
not, how do I choose whether it is precompiled or not?

Thanks in advance (and my apologies for the basic questions;I'm not a 
programmer per se)

Chris 

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 7:30:44 AM UTC-4, Tim Holy wrote:
>
> If MyModule.jl is on your LOAD_PATH, 
>
>     @everywhere import MyModule 
>
> should work. You can add 
>
>     push!(LOAD_PATH,"/my/code/repository") 
>
> to your .juliarc.jl file. 
>
> This has been deprecated because of precompilation; it was felt that the 
> string version left it too ambiguous about whether you wanted to load the 
> raw 
> file or the cached version. 
>
> Best, 
> --Tim 
>
> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 11:58:58 AM Eduardo Lenz wrote: 
> > Hi 
> > I just downloaded the last nightly build  and I am receiving a new 
> > deprecation message: 
> > 
> > Warning, "require" is deprecated, use "using" or "import" instead. 
> > 
> > My question is: I am using "require" due to the need to automatically 
> > import these functions for all workers in a cluster. As long as I know, 
> to 
> > accomplish this task I have to use "require" and also provide the 
> correct 
> > path of the corresponding .jl files. How can I do this same thing using 
> > "using" or "import" ? I tried to use it as I was using "require" and it 
> is 
> > not working as expected. 
> > 
> > Thanks for your help and sorry for the dumb question. 
>
>

Reply via email to