Le 01/11/10 06:13, Dominick Samperi a écrit :
Comments on Sugar...
Rcpp sugar seems to be an enhancement for C++ more than an interface
function,
so wouldn't it make sense to maintain it as a separate C++ class library?
not to me. sugar brings (parts of the) R syntax at the C++ level, it
seems to me very appropriate where it is and it is not moving any time soon.
More generally, it would be useful to know what portions of Rcpp can
function without the R engine running. This can be determined by
trial and error, but it might be helpful if the boundary was more
clearly defined.
I'm not interested in carrying out this study myself. Feel free to
report what you find. I would believe that quite a large portion of the
code needs R.
Another possible advantage is clients could link only
against code that they really need.
Sugar is entirely templates and templates are only instanciated when
used so the effect on the compilation time, etc ... is probably not that
big a deal.
Thanks,
Dominick
--
Romain Francois
Professional R Enthusiast
+33(0) 6 28 91 30 30
http://romainfrancois.blog.free.fr
|- http://bit.ly/czHPM7 : Rcpp Google tech talk on youtube
|- http://bit.ly/9P0eF9 : Google slides
`- http://bit.ly/cVPjPe : Chicago R Meetup slides
_______________________________________________
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
