I am sure there are better ways to achieve the goal. I would suggest that these two be similar if possible. I think the naive expectation is for them to be consistent.
// [[Rcpp::export]] stuff function(Rcpp::stuff) { } // [[Rcpp::export]] stuff function(arma::stuff) { } Thank you again. Cheers. On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM, <rom...@r-enthusiasts.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > This comes up every now and then, I think we can find a syntax to initiate > an arma::mat that would allow what you want. > > It is not likely it will come via attributes. The idea is to keep them > simple. The solutions I see below would eventually lead to clutter, and we > are heading in the less clutter direction. > > I'll think about it and propose something. > > Romain > > Le 2013-07-11 14:32, Changi Han a écrit : > >> Hello, >> >> I think I (superficially) understand the difference between: >> >> // [[Rcpp::export]] >> double sum1(Rcpp::NumericMatrix M) { >> arma::mat A(M.begin(), M.rows(), M.cols(), false); >> return sum(sum(A)); >> } >> >> // [[Rcpp::export]] >> double sum2(arma::mat A) { >> return sum(sum(A)); >> } >> >> Partly out of laziness, partly because sum2 is more elegant, and >> partly to avoid namespace pollution, I was wondering if there is a way >> to "force" a "shallow" copy in sum2. >> >> If not, then may I submit a low priority feature request. An >> attribute? Some thing like: >> >> // [[Rcpp::export]] >> double sum2(arma::mat A) { >> // [[ Rcpp::shallow ( A ) ]] >> return sum(sum(A)); >> } >> >> Or (akin to C++11 generalized attributes) >> >> // [[Rcpp::export]] { [[ Rcpp::shallow ( A ) ]] } >> double sum2(arma::mat A) { >> return sum(sum(A)); >> } >> >> An alternative is to have an argument in sourceCpp that takes a >> list/vector of objects that are to be shallow or deep copied. >> >> For example in sum1, if M is changed within the function before >> casting to the arma::mat, then might be cleaner to add M to a >> list/vector of objects to be deep copied rather than cloning M within >> sum1: leads to one fewer variable name. >> >> Just a thought. I can certainly live with the additional step. As >> always, thanks for all the Rcpp goodness. >> >> Cheers, >> Changi Han >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Rcpp-devel mailing list > Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-**project.org<Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org> > https://lists.r-forge.r-**project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/** > listinfo/rcpp-devel<https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel>
_______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel