I would definitely second that. This eliminates a whole class of hard to deal with issues.
Even Rcpp IMO should really just be header only. Romain Envoyé de mon iPhone > Le 7 avr. 2015 à 20:51, JJ Allaire <jj.alla...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > I think that header-only packages (where possible) are definitely > preferable within the R package ecosystem because it allows you to > sidestep a lot of build configuration and runtime linking complexity. > > The rub is that some libraries simply can't be made header-only, > especially if they make use of static data. I was able to convert the > TinyThread library to header-only by simply prefacing all > function/method definitions with the inline keyword. However that was > a pretty small library so I'm not sure you'd have the same easy time > of it with a larger library like clBLAS. > > >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Charles Determan <cdeterma...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> This is probably the best place I can think of to ask this question if >> perhaps not completely on topic. Some quick context: >> >> I am exploring GPGPU computing and with my 'open-source' mindset I quickly >> gravitated to using OpenCL. Thankfully, many wonderful programmers have >> already begun creating libraries to make this language better and faster. >> One such library is the clBLAS library which essentially implements BLAS >> routines for OpenCL enabled devices. Naturally, I would like to use this >> library but I don't like the idea of telling users to install a dependency >> outside of R and would rather have them install another package. Therefore, >> I have it in my head to create a header package for the clBLAS library to be >> used by anyone exploring OpenCL programming within R. >> >> This leads me to my two general questions that I hope others can comment. >> >> 1. What are developers thoughts regarding the 'packaging' of various C++ >> header libraries? I know this has be very successfully done with the 'BH' >> package but is this considered an exception or an example? >> >> 2. If it is encouraged to create such header packages are there any >> guidelines or standards that should be followed? Is there an expected >> structure? I can look at the 'BH' package and go from there but it would be >> nice if the R(cpp) community had some collective opinion about this. >> >> Regards, >> Charles >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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