The init_2 is unnatural. I would prefer the new syntax. As I have to code that is relying in the init_2 at the moment I'm fine with switching it out. Does this mean that we will be able to expose multiple constructors? -Andrew
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Romain Francois <rom...@r-enthusiasts.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I've just commited some code that will potentially make it simpler to expose > constructors. > > Where previously we would do something like > > .constructor( init_2<double,double>() ) > > we can now do: > > .ctor<double,double>() > > We probably don't want to keep both, so I'd like to keep the second solution > but to call it constructor, so that we will do: > > .constructor<double,double>() > > Is this ok for everybody ? I guess this is only mainly relevant for Doug, > Andrew and John anyway at the moment :-) > > Romain > > -- > Romain Francois > Professional R Enthusiast > +33(0) 6 28 91 30 30 > http://romainfrancois.blog.free.fr > |- http://bit.ly/9VOd3l : ZAT! 2010 > |- http://bit.ly/c6DzuX : Impressionnism with R > `- http://bit.ly/czHPM7 : Rcpp Google tech talk on youtube > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
