On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Romain Francois <rom...@r-enthusiasts.com> wrote: >> >> Just to clarify -- does your plan include storing user-modified >> fields and properties in objects? E.g. below, modtest with the msg >> set? > > yes. Although the way I see it, this will require more work for the > developper, who would have to provide a serialization/deserialization couple > for his/her classes. > > This is a nice goal for a future version.
Am I naive to think that a 1-to-1 mapping between C++ object fields & properties and an S4 object might make sense? This reduces the module developer's problem of serial/deserialization to 1) writing a constructor (and perhaps with validator) that takes an S4 object, and 2) writing a finalizer that populates a specified S4 object in the user's environment, tears down the C++ object (as per R Exts manual), and let's save() do the rest? It seems that, in theory, there's a canonical mapping between the names/types of fields/properties exposed in the RCPP_MODULE call and the proposed S4 object. The main gotcha I see here is that any variable within a C++ object *not* exposed as a field/property must be viewed as a const to ensure consistency of the C++ object between write and re-construct... If this is off-base, feel free to ignore or point out good reading material :) -christian -- A man, a plan, a cat, a ham, a yak, a yam, a hat, a canal – Panama! _______________________________________________ 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
