Le 11/10/13 13:26, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
Romain,
On 11 October 2013 at 13:03, Romain Francois wrote:
| Anyway, I'd like to propose adding Shield, Armor and Shleter to Rcpp.
Sure.
| This is a non disruptive proposal as the template classes I propose
| don't interract with the rest of the code. We might not use them in
| Rcpp, but we should. There are currently 155 calls to UNPROTECT in the
| .h and .cpp of Rcpp. That is that many macro calls we could get rid of.
(UN)PROTECT calls in code internal to Rcpp are less of a worry (at least on
the user list);
Sure. I'll make my case in the appropriate channel if we decide to add
the feature.
another question is how often Rcpp users need to resort to
this in their code, and how often it would help? I don't have a good idea.
They fit perfectly in what I do with dplyrRcpp. This replaces the usual
reflex of "I can't use an api class so i'll just use PROTECT/UNPROTECT"
We can get an idea using some grepping for UNPROTECT in packages that
depend on Rcpp.
And OTOH as this seems to non-disruptive and orthogonal to existing code, why
not?
It is. That would just be 3 template class, all using inline functions.
The code produced by the compiler should be equivalent to using
PROTECT/UNPROTECT ...
The code written by the developper will be nicer.
And the names are very cute indeed. I'd say go for it.
Thanks, Dirk
Kudos to http://thesaurus.com/browse/protector
I still want to see comments from users.
One thing I'm not certain about is the interface of Shelter, We might be
able to make something more natural.
--
Romain Francois
Professional R Enthusiast
+33(0) 6 28 91 30 30
_______________________________________________
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
