Re: [Rd] Definition of uintptr_t in Rinterface.h

My comment is about the definition of HAVE_UINTPTR_T in Rconfig.h. stdint.h is coming with (g)libc, therefore unlikely to change/appear/disappear (unless kernel and a bit of the OS changes), therefore may not be a realistic concern. On the other hand mixing compilers is frequent, but this is not

Re: [Rd] Definition of uintptr_t in Rinterface.h

> On Jan 1, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Laurent Gautier wrote: > > > > 2017-01-01 8:28 GMT-05:00 Prof Brian Ripley : > On 29/12/2016 15:55, Simon Urbanek wrote: > The problem is elsewhere - Rinterface.h guards the ultima-ratio fallback with > HAVE_UINTPTR_T

Re: [Rd] Definition of uintptr_t in Rinterface.h

2017-01-01 8:28 GMT-05:00 Prof Brian Ripley : > On 29/12/2016 15:55, Simon Urbanek wrote: > >> The problem is elsewhere - Rinterface.h guards the ultima-ratio fallback >> with HAVE_UINTPTR_T but that config flag is not exported in Rconfig.h. >> Should be now fixed in

Re: [Rd] Definition of uintptr_t in Rinterface.h

On 1 January 2017 at 13:28, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: | On 29/12/2016 15:55, Simon Urbanek wrote: | > The problem is elsewhere - Rinterface.h guards the ultima-ratio fallback with HAVE_UINTPTR_T but that config flag is not exported in Rconfig.h. Should be now fixed in R-devel - please check if

Re: [Rd] Definition of uintptr_t in Rinterface.h

On 29/12/2016 15:55, Simon Urbanek wrote: The problem is elsewhere - Rinterface.h guards the ultima-ratio fallback with HAVE_UINTPTR_T but that config flag is not exported in Rconfig.h. Should be now fixed in R-devel - please check if that works for you. Rconfig.h would be appropriate if

Re: [Rd] Definition of uintptr_t in Rinterface.h

Thanks for looking at it. Having HAVE_UINTPTR_T defined in Rconfig.h should fix the issue. Will the fix make it to R-3.3.3 (if that point release is planned, or R-3.3.2-patched), or will it only be with R-3.4 ? L. PS: I am forwarding a thank you note to the reporter of the problem on the rpy2

Re: [Rd] Definition of uintptr_t in Rinterface.h

The problem is elsewhere - Rinterface.h guards the ultima-ratio fallback with HAVE_UINTPTR_T but that config flag is not exported in Rconfig.h. Should be now fixed in R-devel - please check if that works for you. Thanks, Simon > On Dec 26, 2016, at 11:25 PM, Laurent Gautier

[Rd] Definition of uintptr_t in Rinterface.h

Hi, I was recently pointed out that a definition in Rinterface.h can be conflicting with a definition in stdint.h: /usr/include/R/Rinterface.h has: typedef unsigned long uintptr_t; /usr/include/stdint.h has: typedef unsigned int uintptr_t; (when 32bit platform complete definition is: #if

Re: [Rd] Definition of [[

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote: Stavros Macrakis wrote: Well, that's one issue. But another is that there should be a specification addressed to users, who should not have to understand internals. this should really be taken seriously. Well, the lack of such a

Re: [Rd] Definition of [[

somewhat one the side, l = list(1) l[[2]] # error, index out of bounds l[2][[1]] # NULL that is, we can't extract from l any element at an index exceeding the list's length (if we could, it would have been NULL or some sort of _NA_list), but we can extract a sublist at

[Rd] Definition of [[

The semantics of [ and [[ don't seem to be fully specified in the Reference manual. In particular, I can't find where the following cases are covered: cc - c(1); ll - list(1) cc[3] [1] NA OK, RefMan says: If i is positive and exceeds length(x) then the corresponding selection is NA.

Re: [Rd] Definition of [[

On 15/03/2009 2:31 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: The semantics of [ and [[ don't seem to be fully specified in the Reference manual. In particular, I can't find where the following cases are covered: cc - c(1); ll - list(1) cc[3] [1] NA OK, RefMan says: If i is positive and exceeds

Re: [Rd] Definition of [[

Duncan, Thanks for the reply. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Duncan Murdoch murd...@stats.uwo.ca wrote: On 15/03/2009 2:31 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: dput(ll[3]) list(NULL) ? i is positive and exceeds length(x); why isn't this list(NA)? Because the sentence you read was talking about

Re: [Rd] Definition of [[

Stavros Macrakis wrote: Well, that's one issue. But another is that there should be a specification addressed to users, who should not have to understand internals. this should really be taken seriously. vQ __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing

Re: [Rd] Definition of [[

Just a couple of inline comments down below: On 15/03/2009 5:30 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: Duncan, Thanks for the reply. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Duncan Murdoch murd...@stats.uwo.ca wrote: On 15/03/2009 2:31 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: dput(ll[3]) list(NULL) ? i is positive and