1) Is there any example or writeup on the difficulties of extending
reference classes across packages? Just so I can fully understand the
issues.
Here's a simple example:
library(scales)
library(methods)
MyRange - setRefClass(MyRange, contains = DiscreteRange)
a_range - MyRange()
I understand Hadley's point; it's a consequence of the modification of the
environment of the ref. class methods.
Good point, but it seems we can make that an option (there are advantages to it
of code quality and ease of writing, when it works);
Let's discuss possibilities, off-list until
Could of requests:
1) Is there any example or writeup on the difficulties of extending
reference classes across packages? Just so I can fully understand the
issues.
2) In what sorts of situations does the performance of reference
classes cause problems? Sure, it's an order of magnitude slower
I can provide a little background on why particular choices were made for
R6. Generally speaking, speed is a primary consideration in making
decisions about the design of R6. The basic structure of R6 classes is
actually not so different from reference classes: an R6 object is an
environment. But
Apart from speed, the most important advantage of R6 over ref classes
is that's it easy to subclass a class defined in package A in package
B. This is currently difficult with ref classes because of the way it
does scoping. (And I think it's difficult to fix without fundamentally
changing how ref
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Michael Lawrence
lawrence.mich...@gene.com wrote:
[...]
Would you please provide the details on this test case, including your
benchmarks, and what you are trying to achieve at the high-level?
You can also see http://rpubs.com/wch/17459
Linked from
(Moved to R-devel)
Niek,
Would you please provide the details on this test case, including your
benchmarks, and what you are trying to achieve at the high-level?
Thanks,
Michael
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Niek Bouman niek.bou...@keygene.com wrote:
Dear R-core team,
I was wondering
