I agree with Dale; it would be good to see these functions in Rcpp. -Kevin
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Smith, Dale (Norcross) <dale.sm...@fiserv.com> wrote: > Romain, > > I don't think I have any use for your proposed code at this time. However, I > would like to say that reducing the number of macro calls is a worthy goal. > My own attitude is "build it and they will use it". > > Dale Smith, Ph.D. > Senior Financial Quantitative Analyst > Financial & Risk Management Solutions > Fiserv > Office: 678-375-5315 > www.fiserv.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: rcpp-devel-boun...@r-forge.wu-wien.ac.at > [mailto:rcpp-devel-boun...@r-forge.wu-wien.ac.at] On Behalf Of Romain Francois > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:42 AM > To: Dirk Eddelbuettel > Cc: rcpp-de...@r-forge.wu-wien.ac.at > Subject: Re: [Rcpp-devel] Armor, Shield and Shelter. > > Le 11/10/13 13:26, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit : >> >> Romain, >> >> On 11 October 2013 at 13:03, Romain Francois wrote: >> | Anyway, I'd like to propose adding Shield, Armor and Shleter to Rcpp. >> >> Sure. >> >> | This is a non disruptive proposal as the template classes I propose >> | don't interract with the rest of the code. We might not use them in >> | Rcpp, but we should. There are currently 155 calls to UNPROTECT in >> | the .h and .cpp of Rcpp. That is that many macro calls we could get rid of. >> >> (UN)PROTECT calls in code internal to Rcpp are less of a worry (at >> least on the user list); > > Sure. I'll make my case in the appropriate channel if we decide to add the > feature. > >> another question is how often Rcpp users need to resort to this in >> their code, and how often it would help? I don't have a good idea. > > They fit perfectly in what I do with dplyrRcpp. This replaces the usual > reflex of "I can't use an api class so i'll just use PROTECT/UNPROTECT" > > We can get an idea using some grepping for UNPROTECT in packages that depend > on Rcpp. > >> And OTOH as this seems to non-disruptive and orthogonal to existing >> code, why not? > > It is. That would just be 3 template class, all using inline functions. > The code produced by the compiler should be equivalent to using > PROTECT/UNPROTECT ... > > The code written by the developper will be nicer. > >> And the names are very cute indeed. I'd say go for it. >> >> Thanks, Dirk > > Kudos to http://thesaurus.com/browse/protector > > I still want to see comments from users. > > One thing I'm not certain about is the interface of Shelter, We might be able > to make something more natural. > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
