On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:58 PM,
wrote:
> to me the concern exists whether the other
> function is in a package or not, how would a call be made to an outside
> compiled object code from within Rcpp.
This is a pretty confusing sentence(s). Clearer questions tend to
elicit clearer answers :)
> M
On October 20, 2011 07:58:34 PM Michael Hannon wrote:
> Greetings. I'm trying to bootstrap my way into Rcpp. I have the
> impression that the "Sugar" extension to Rcpp allows one to use R syntax
> to run a substantial subset of Rcommands within C++
I think a more correct statement would be that
On 21 October 2011 at 11:23, Davor Cubranic wrote:
| On October 20, 2011 07:58:34 PM Michael Hannon wrote:
| > Greetings. I'm trying to bootstrap my way into Rcpp. I have the
| > impression that the "Sugar" extension to Rcpp allows one to use R syntax
| > to run a substantial subset of Rcommands
Perhaps this is an indication that I should read some sections of "C++
Annotations" again. I am trying to remember the pros and cons of
initializing a class instance in C++ through assignment or through the
copy constructor. So, for example, if I have a class "foo" and a
function "bar" that retur
On 21 October 2011 at 15:12, Douglas Bates wrote:
| Perhaps this is an indication that I should read some sections of "C++
| Annotations" again. I am trying to remember the pros and cons of
| initializing a class instance in C++ through assignment or through the
| copy constructor. So, for examp
Here is a slightly better setup with an 'empty' function which allows us to
get an idea of the cost of the additional statements: either the copy
constructor or the constructor.
R> suppressMessages(require(inline))
R> suppressMessages(require(rbenchmark))
R> suppressMessages(require(microbenchmar
