On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > > 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 didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that it is not possible to use asInteger in Rcpp and count on the name being remapped to Rf_asInteger. > | 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. I suppose I could have just checked whether Rcpp::as<int> calls Rf_asInteger. If so, everything is cool. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find that specialization. _______________________________________________ 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
