Seth, On May 1, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Seth Falcon wrote:
> Simon Urbanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Duncan, >> >> are you going to take care of this? I have a quick solution for R- >> devel that adds a special entry if requested. >> >> I'm not quite convinced that we need as much flexibility as adding >> arbitrary DllInfos, because the embedding application is a really >> special concept (everything else is dynamically loaded except for >> the application). In a sense "base" does that for non-embedded R >> and the distinction is that it doesn't allow dynamic lookup. I >> don't think adding arbitrary DllInfos is wise, because we would >> have to expose DLL handles etc. - do we really want to do that? >> And as for adding NULL-handle DLLInfos, there is only one >> legitimate use and that is the embedding application, so anything >> else looks more like abuse to me... (just lazy solution to not >> have to determine the dll). Also the embedded DllInfo cannot be >> unloaded by design, so it doesn't need anything complicated... > > Perhaps I'm not understanding the issues at hand, but I think there > are other use cases for a mechanism accessible to package > developers to dynamically register routines. Just as R can load > packages to make new routines available, I don't see why an R > package should not be able to provide an analogous plugin mechanism > of its own. > That is a different issue - packages are free to register any routines as they already have a DllInfo entry in the current implementation. What we are talking about here is the embedded case where the embedding application doesn't have a DllInfo because it's loading R and not vice versa, so it cannot register anything. Cheers, Simon ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
