We *can* call Rf_error from C++ code, but when we do it bypasses all C++ destructors on the stack, so we don't do it so as not leak memory and otherwise have deterministic behavior around construction/destruction.
You'll notice in Dirk's example that there are no C++ objects on the stack when he calls Rf_error. The core idea in Rcpp is to use exceptions to get high enough in the stack that there are no more destructors. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Sparapani, Rodney <rspar...@mcw.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 17:53 -0700, JJ Allaire wrote: >> One piece of immediate feedback on your initial implementation: you >> can't call Rf_error from C++ code (as it will bypass C++ destructors >> on the stack). Rather, you should throw Rcpp::exception. > > Hi JJ: > > Ok, this puzzles me. We can't call Rf_error from C++ code, but we can > call it from within the exception handler, right? It would seem so > since Dirk has written a nice gallery post that does it that way... > http://gallery.rcpp.org/articles/intro-to-exceptions > > Just my $0.02, but I would stick to exceptions and avoid assert in C++. > > Rodney > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
