> This is an opportunity for a quick diet. Just before the summer. Looking good in a bikini is always important. :-)
That no-one uses it in any CRAN package is also compelling. (I just searched on StackOverflow and no mention there either.) Dirk wrote: >> APIs are contracts we have with users. I would prefer to see strong >> reasons for change, rather than a style preference. Romain wrote: > If we keep it we surely need to document it as part of this contract I think this is the most compelling reason. It seems almost undocumented. https://www.google.co.jp/search?q="RCPP_FUNCTION"; https://www.google.co.jp/search?q="RCPP_FUNCTION_0"; There is something here: http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/blog/2010/05/17/ (BTW, shouldn't "RCPP_FUNCTION_VOID_2" have been "RCPP_FUNCTION_VOID_1" ?) Can those examples be mechanically converted to use Rcpp modules, Romain? If so, documenting how to convert might be sufficient, and anyone who gets hit by the removal can spend 20 minutes updating their code to work. Darren _______________________________________________ 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
