On 2 December 2013 at 14:43, Douglas Bates wrote: | On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: | Do you think we should move fastLm out? | | | And face the "Wrath of Achim" for removing a function that is described in a | JSS paper?
We could add a 'Suggests: RcppEigenFastLm' (or whichever name we end up with). It would help with a thing or too -- didn't you even discover a slight NAMESPACE issue on the R side recently? On 3 December 2013 at 08:47, Romain Francois wrote: | without them, we (you) could deliver the packages as just headers. Most | people depend on these packages to get the library, not to get this | package's incantation of fastLm. | | I find them more useful as documentation items outside of the package, | kind of like "look how I can do fastLm with this one". This has been | useful in training sessions for example. Yes. Hence my question to Doug. And headers-only wasn't an option when fastLm() was first set up. Might be time to improve on things after the 0.10.7 / 0.11.0 release. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com _______________________________________________ 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
