using works on a module level, not a file level, so you could replace your macro with a module to do a bulk import
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Kevin Squire <kevin.squ...@gmail.com>wrote: > Okay. I think that's a little different than what I was asking for, which > was a block structure within which I have access to a module's exports, but > external to which I don't. "using ModuleX" and only works on a file level, > currently. > > Kevin > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Jameson Nash <vtjn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Not using, but scope of a method >> >> >> On Friday, February 28, 2014, Kevin Squire <kevin.squ...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Jameson. But looking in tests, I can't seem to find any examples >>> which constrain "using" of a module to a let block. Am I missing something? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Kevin >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jameson Nash <vtjn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Let blocks already do that. See the Julia tests for examples >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, February 28, 2014, Kevin Squire <kevin.squ...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Think about it more, I think the best way to do this is for each >>>>>> package to define their own functions (not extending the functions in the >>>>>> base) with consistent naming. Then in the client code, we will be able >>>>>> to do >>>>>> VML.exp(a1) >>>>>> IPP.exp(a2) >>>>>> Yeppp.exp(a3) >>>>>> >>>>>> I think what we only have to do is to coordinate the naming across >>>>>> several packages. So I can easily replace ``Yeppp.add`` with ``VML.add`` >>>>>> or >>>>>> the other way round. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A namespace macro allowing the use of different versions in different >>>>> regions would be nice. Maybe something like >>>>> >>>>> @using VML begin >>>>> ... >>>>> y = exp(a1) # uses VML.exp >>>>> ... >>>>> end >>>>> >>>>> @using IPP begin >>>>> ... >>>>> x = exp(a2) # uses IPP.exp >>>>> y = x - VML.exp(a1) >>>>> ... >>>>> end >>>>> >>>>> (Nesting would be challenging...) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Kevin >>>>> >>>> >>> >
