Le 10/10/13 04:54, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
On 10 October 2013 at 04:02, Romain Francois wrote: | Le 10/10/13 03:53, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit : | > Ack. If the set of functions is small and rarely changes, then registration | > using R's mechanism is indeed fine. Worked so far for getting Jeff and Josh's | > xts into RcppXts, but that hasn't really moved beyond proof of concept. "proof of concept ... at the level of the RcppXts package" in the sense that the package does not yet do much with the functions it imports. | That is what Rcpp11 uses too and the unit test suite is big. This works. | | Also used in Matrix, lme4. | | That's a bit more than POC level. Of course, I phrased this poorly and you promptly misunderstood. Registration of C routines has been documented well and used by lme4 and Matrix for several years now. But still a pain to declare 'by hand' for a bazillion functions. I know you luuv your macros, but you also know how a large part of the world thinks about old-C-style macros. But they get certain jobs done.
I don't particularly love macros. I much prefer templates. For example in Rcpp11, I replaced thousands lines worth of macros code bloat with a few dozens of lines of templates.
Would be easy enough to come up with a way to automatically generate things automatically.
A package author could leverage tools:::read_symbols_from_object_file, i.e. here are all the symbols in Rcpp.so:
symbols <- tools:::read_symbols_from_object_file( system.file( "libs", "Rcpp.so", package = "Rcpp" ) )[,1]
Would be easy to then come up with a naming convention, and generate the registration.
read_symbols_from_object_file is why we have been all of a sudden forbidden to use functions that R exposes but "not part of the api".
-- Romain Francois Professional R Enthusiast +33(0) 6 28 91 30 30 _______________________________________________ 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
