Doesn't sugar require Rcpp vectors, which encapsulate R SEXP vectors? If that is the case you really cannot separate them at all since there is a direct dependency on R.
-Andrew On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Shane Conway <shane.con...@gmail.com> wrote: > My two cents: > > That seems sensible; an alternative view would be to say that sugar is > in the same vein as the rest of Rcpp, might regularly be used in the > same code, and the goal should be to keep everything as simple as > possible (i.e. one library). I, for one, don't see the need to > separate them. They're very tightly coupled. > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Dominick Samperi <djsamp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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? > > 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. Another possible advantage is clients could link only > > against code that they really need. > > > > Thanks, > > Dominick > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
