On 24 April 2017 at 10:45, Rolf Turner wrote: | On 24/04/17 10:31, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > On 24 April 2017 at 10:18, Rolf Turner wrote: | > | One more (I hope it's the last!) question: | > | | > | One of my subroutines has an argument of type *logical*. There is no | > | logical type in C. So, since I am perforce using C-speak, I cannot | > | change "void *" to "void logical". | > | | > | I have a (very vague) understanding that in C one uses variables of int | > | type (taking the values 0, for FALSE, and 1, for TRUE) as logical variables. | > | | > | On that understanding I took a punt and replaced "void *" by "int *" for | > | the logical type variable. The package built and passed | > | | > | "R CMD check --as-cran" | > | | > | so it seems that this is OK. Is this the Right Thing To Do? Are there | > | any (obvious?) lurking perils? | > | > I think you are allowed to use C99 [1] which has it -- see eg | > | > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4159713/how-to-use-boolean-datatype-in-c | > | > Dirk | > | > [1] Section 1.6.4 opems with | > | > 1.6.4 Portable C and C++ code | > ----------------------------- | > | > Writing portable C and C++ code is mainly a matter of observing the | > standards (C99, C++98 or where declared C++11/14) and testing that | > extensions (such as POSIX functions) are supported. | | Ah, but I'm *not* using C at all, I'm using Fortran. So I think that | raising the possibility of using C99 is a communist fish[1]. I just | want to make sure that my (modified) init.c is syntactically correct and
I would be surpised if init.c was Fortran. Anyway... | robust for implementing the registration of my *Fortran* routines. Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
