Yes, Julia 0.4 Great to hear that this is easier in 0.5! -Other Tim
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 9:49:38 AM UTC-7, Tim Holy wrote: > > Which version of julia? If you're not using 0.5, try it and you might be > pleased. > > You can also launch `julia --inline=no`, which occasionally still remains > useful. > > --Tim > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:55:58 AM CDT Tim Wheeler wrote: > > Hi Julia Users, > > > > So I was looking at ConjugatePriors.jl and trying to resolve its > problems > > with respect to the latest Distributions.jl. As discussed in issue 11 > > <https://github.com/JuliaStats/ConjugatePriors.jl/issues/11>, testing > > ConjugatePriors after removing the REQUIRE bounds results in: > > > > MethodError: no method matching > > > _rand!(::Distributions.MvNormalCanon{PDMats.PDMat{Float64,Array{Float64,2}}, > > > Array{Float64,1}}, > > ::Array{Float64,1}) on line 52 of conjugates_mvnormal.jl > > > > < > https://github.com/JuliaStats/ConjugatePriors.jl/blob/master/test/conjugate > > s_mvnormal.jl#L52>. and line 25 of fallbacks.jl > > > > If you check that line you find the following: > > > > posterior_randmodel(pri, G::IncompleteFormulation, x) = complete(G, pri, > > posterior_rand(pri, G, x)) > > > > Okay, the problem isn't really there. The call to posterior_rand is > inlined > > (I assume), so it doesn't show up in the test stack trace. So we > manually > > go to: > > > > posterior_rand(pri, G::IncompleteFormulation, x) = > Base.rand(posterior_canon > > (pri, G, x)) > > > > > > This also isn't the problem, at least not directly. > > > > In fact, the also inlined call to posterior_canon(pri, G, x) works fine. > It > > returns an MvNormalCanon object and then Base.rand is called. > > > > This calls some inlined functions, which eventually call > > Base._rand!(MvNormalCanon, x::Vector), which leads to the problem, > namely > > that _rand!(MvNormalCannon, x::Matrix) is all that is defined. > > > > But why was that so hard to discover? Why does only line 25 of > fallbacks,jl > > show up in the error stack trace? Was there a better way to debug this? > > >
