On 06.06.2017 10:07, Martin Maechler wrote:
Kirill Müller <kirill.muel...@ivt.baug.ethz.ch>
on Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:30:20 +0200 writes:
> Hi I've noted a minor inconsistency in the documentation:
> Current R-exts reads
> s = PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(eval(OS->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx);
> but I believe it has to be
> PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(s = eval(OS->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx);
> because PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() returns void.
Yes indeed, thank you Kirill!
note that the same is true for its partner function|macro REPROTECT()
However, as PROTECT() is used a gazillion times and
PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() is used about 100 x less, and PROTECT()
*does* return the SEXP,
I do wonder why PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() and REPROTECT() could not
behave the same as PROTECT()
(a view at the source code seems to suggest a change to be trivial).
I assume usual compiler optimization would not create less
efficient code in case the idiom PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(s = ...)
is used, i.e., in case the return value is not used ?
Maybe this is mainly a matter of taste, but I find the use of
SEXP s = PROTECT(........);
quite nice in typical cases where this appears early in a function.
Also for that reason -- but even more for consistency -- it
would also be nice if PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() behaved the same.
Thanks, Martin, this sounds reasonable. I've put together a patch for
review [1], a diff for applying to SVN (via `cat | patch -p1`) would be
[2]. The code compiles on my system.
-Kirill
[1] https://github.com/krlmlr/r-source/pull/5/files
[2] https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/krlmlr/r-source/pull/5.diff
Martin
> Best regards
> Kirill
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
