Julia's module system is very flexible. Check out Modules in the (0.4)
manual and also include, import, export, using, require, reload, whos,
workspace, current_module and probably some other related entries - it can
all be a bit confusing :).
Here's an example which may do what you're looking for:
$ cat fi_0.jl
module M0
include("fi_1.jl")
include("fi_2.jl")
end
$ cat fi_1.jl
module M1
foo()="I'm foo"
end
$ cat fi_2.jl
module M2
foo()="I'm foo too"
end
$ julia -q
julia> include("fi_0.jl")
M0
julia> M0.M1.foo()
"I'm foo"
julia> M0.M2.foo()
"I'm foo too"
-- Adrian.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Adrian Salceanu <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm trying to figure out how to split a module across multiple files. Or
> better put, to have multiple submodules inside a main module, with each
> submodule in one file. However, I always end up with the latest file
> overwriting the module code previously imported (last submodule overwrites
> the previous submodule).
>
> Example:
>
> =============
>
> # file: a.jl
> module Test
>
> module A
>
> export a
>
> function a()
> println("a")
> end
>
> end
>
> end
>
> ==============
>
> # file: b.jl
>
> module Test
>
> module B
>
> export b
>
> function b()
> println("b")
> end
>
> end
>
> end
>
> ===============
>
> Expected result:
> upon including both files in a 3rd file or REPL, Test.A.a() and Test.B.b()
> should both be in scope.
>
> Actual result:
> last included file overwrites everything in Test, so either Test.A.a() or
> Test.B.b() are in scope, but not both.
>
> ================
>
> Where am I going with this?
> I'm interested in applying a design pattern common in ruby (rails) or
> elixir. In these languages one can split a module (or class/type
> definition) across multiple files and with each inclusion, the
> module/class/type is reopened, and the new methods are appended.
>
> Why doing this?
> Coming from ruby/elixir, it's an excellent way of organizing a complex
> codebase. I'm coding a web framework and I want all the framework code to
> be in a Framework super-module - with submodules for each major feature,
> like Router, Server, Controller, etc. To encapsulate the framework code in
> a structure like Framework.Router, Framework.Server, etc.
> Then the user app, a instance implementation of the web framework would be
> in a module of it's own, say AppName, with it's own submodules for Routes,
> Config, etc. Resulting in AppName.Routes, AppName.Config, etc. (Similar to
> how rails organizes the apps).
>
> Is this possible? If yes, how can it be done?
>
> Many thanks for your time and your help, much appreciated!
>
