Le 01/11/10 15:57, Shane Conway a écrit :
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.
They definitely are.
The main magic behind sugar is the Rcpp::VectorBase template class that
implements the necessary CRTP wizardry.
classes such as NumericVector are derived from VectorBase, so Rcpp needs
sugar.
Also, order of imports matters and can get messy in C++. So I think
users appreciate that we take care of it for them.
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
--
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
