Cedric, Thanks for the tips!! Also thanks for reminding the use of `import` versus `using`. I think that's why reload doesn't work for me, as I stuck to `using`.
Calvin On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:21:42 PM UTC+1, Cedric St-Jean wrote: > > It doesn't work all the time for me either, but in general: > > - Don't `using A` if you want to reload A. Import it and write `A.foo()` > instead. > - If B imports/uses A, you'll have to reload A first, then reload B. > - Beware of the infamous issue 265 > <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/265> > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:48 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I just found that `reload()` sometimes doesn't work at all. I `reloaded` >> a module that I modified. But I still see the same results as before the >> package was modified. Btw, this module is a local module, not a package >> installed via `Pkg.add()`. What might be a possible cause? >> >> Another question: I'm working on a module (let me call it C) which uses >> two other modules, say, A and B. C uses A and B, so the beginning of C >> looks like >> using A >> using B >> >> But B uses A too. So B starts as >> using A >> >> Can this kind of multiple `using` cause any issues? Does it, at least, >> add more work to the compilation stage? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 3:18:04 AM UTC+1, Cedric St-Jean wrote: >> >>> I don't have a great solution to this, but this is what I do... >>> >>> 1. I think that `reload("PackageName")` should work without workspace(). >>> See http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.4/manual/workflow-tips/ >>> 2. I use `Autoreload.jl`. It's unfortunately not actively maintained, >>> but it works well enough for now if you don't have parametric types in the >>> autoreloaded modules >>> 3. Reloading works better if you `include` files into one big module >>> instead of having multiple modules. >>> >>> I know, this sucks, but IIUC it's on the roadmap to improve this before >>> 1.0 >>> >>> Cédric >>> >>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:37:32 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Bump up.. >>>> >>> >
