Re: Re: loading packages
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg42188] Re: [mg42165] Re: loading packages
- From: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:57:06 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst
- References: <bcmoa1$slg$1@smc.vnet.net> <200306210649.CAA13238@smc.vnet.net>
- Reply-to: murray at math.umass.edu
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Would you say what sort of thing might typically result in an _in_correctly written package, for which re-loading would not work properly and hence for which Needs would be the preferred approach? Paul Abbott wrote: > In article <bcmoa1$slg$1 at smc.vnet.net>, > "David Park" <djmp at earthlink.net> wrote: > >>It is also generally better to use Needs statements than << statements. They >>can be reevaluated without causing any problems. > > > This is only true and required if the package itself has not been > written correctly. Re-loading a package _should_ work properly. > > Cheers, > Paul -- Reply to "REPLY TO" address and NOT to the "FROM" address!! Otherwise I will never see your reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305
- References:
- Re: loading packages
- From: Paul Abbott <paul@physics.uwa.edu.au>
- Re: loading packages