although it's not clear that's much better than
if USE_A
using A
else
using B
end
really...
On Sunday, 13 September 2015 21:59:37 UTC-3, andrew cooke wrote:
>
>
> the following works..
>
> first, defining module AB:
>
> module A
> export foo
> foo() = println("a")
> end
>
> module B
> export foo
> foo() = println("b")
> end
>
> module AB
> if Main.USE_A
> using A
> else
> using B
> end
> export foo
> end
>
> that depends on Main.USE_A, where Main is the initial module when things
> start up, so then you can do:
>
> USE_A = true
>
> include("ab.jl")
>
> using AB
> foo()
>
> which prints "a".
>
> no idea if this is considered kosher...
>
> andrew
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 13 September 2015 21:45:57 UTC-3, andrew cooke wrote:
>>
>>
>> i don't know of a good way to do this.
>>
>> really, parameterised modules would be great.
>>
>> the simplest thing i can think of is if modules are first class and using
>> etal can take an expression, but the following doesn't run:
>>
>> module A
>> foo() = println("a")
>> end
>>
>> module B
>> foo() = println("b")
>> end
>>
>> module AB
>> m(x) = x ? A : B
>> end
>>
>> using AB
>> using m(true)
>> foo() # wouldn't it be nice if this printed "a"?
>>
>> andrew
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 13 September 2015 19:33:16 UTC-3, Seth wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to track a setting throughout my module (that will cause the
>>> [transparent] dispatch of either single-threaded or parallel versions of
>>> many different functions). Is there a more Julian way of doing the
>>> following? This seems inelegant:
>>>
>>> _parallel = false # start off without parallelism - user calls
>>> parallelize() to set/unset.
>>>
>>> function parallelize(p::Bool=true)
>>> global _parallel = p
>>> end
>>>
>>>
>>> function foo(a::Int) # there will be many functions like this
>>> if _parallel
>>> _foo_parallel(a)
>>> else
>>> _foo_singlethread(a)
>>> end
>>> end
>>>
>>>
