On 2010-06-09, at 12:03 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > ... at a fundamental level, I am not yet sure that 'poking through' an api > that R Core has sealed is the right idea. > > My hunch is that I would just take the code to loess_raw and stick it into a > small utility package so that one could feed it data using Rcpp.
I may end up doing this in the end, but it would be nice not to have to duplicate loess's code. > | It might be worth formalize that sort of things in a nice Rcpp > | abstraction. For example, make a Rcpp::DynamicLibrary class with member > | functions to pull these things conveniently. > > That is certainly cool stuff just like Matt's recent blog (via R Bloggers) > posts that did similar stuff. I just haven't convinced myself that we should > really advertise usage like that. Romain's solution looks much cleaner to me than Matt's use of 'objdump' and then grepping through its output. Romain simply uses existing advertised R mechanisms, as far as I can see. I'll have to follow up on R-core on the reasoning why a C routine would be exposed to R, but not to other C code. (I.e., R_RegisterRoutines vs R_RegisterCCallable.) I understand why some symbols would be kept private to a package, but if we think of a layered design with native code sitting below the interpreter, then symbols available to R should also be reachable from C in other packages without tricks like this one. Davor _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
