On 6 January 2012 at 12:59, Douglas Bates wrote: | On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:39 PM, John Chambers <j...@stat.stanford.edu> wrote: | > The "Rf_" part of the API in particular is ugly and somewhat of an add-on | > forced in a few examples by the use of some common names in the macro files. | | But, as it stands, that is a requirement when using Rcpp.
Where? I can think of one propagated use, which is at the bottom of the try/catch structure where we use ::Rf_error. But the commonly used macros hide it, and we could/should obviously wrap this. Otherwise, and especially since the 'Rcpp sugar' initiative took off, I don't really touch any ::Rf_* myself anymore. Inside the Rcpp code base, sure. But not really in user-facing stuff and Rcpp applications. | I think of the Rf_ part as more due to the fact that C doesn't have a | concept of namespaces so anything in the R API is at the top level | namespace leading to some conflicts. Agreed. But speaking stylistically, for the same reason that we prefer C++ versions of C header files (eg cstdint over stdint.h, cstdio over stdio.h, ...) I am with John on the preference for C++ idioms when given a choice. Dirk -- "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx _______________________________________________ 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
