[Rd] Give update.formula() an option not to simplify or reorder the result -- request for comments

Dear All, Martin Maechler has asked me to send this to R-devel for discussion after I submitted it as an enhancement request ( https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17563). At this time, the update.formula() method always performs a number of transformations on the results, eliminat

[Rd] Submitting packages with weak circular dependencies to CRAN.

Hello, R-devel, I am planning to submit two packages, A and B, to CRAN. Package B uses an API exported by package A, while package A uses package B to test the API in question. Thus, package B Depends on, and Enhances, A, and A Suggests B. Could I get some guidance on submitting them to CRAN? A c

Re: [Rd] [patch] Behavior of .C() and .Fortran() when given double(0) or integer(0).

On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 14:15 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 26 May 2012 at 14:00, Simon Urbanek wrote: > | [...] the real answer is use .Call() instead. > > Maybe Kurt could add something to that extent to the R FAQ ? Since it looks like the 0-length -> invalid pointer behavior is here to st

Re: [Rd] [patch] Behavior of .C() and .Fortran() when given double(0) or integer(0).

Dear Simon, On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 14:00 -0400, Simon Urbanek wrote: > > My suggestion is that in the next release, it ought to be the > > standard, documented behavior, not just because it's historical, but > > because it's more convenient and safer. > > That is bogus - .C is inherently unsafe wr

Re: [Rd] [patch] Behavior of .C() and .Fortran() when given double(0) or integer(0).

to documentation, and, if you like, I am willing to write one that does. If my patch can be improved in some other way, please let me know and I will try to improve it. Sincerely, Pavel Krivitsky On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 10:46 +0100, Pro

[Rd] [patch] Behavior of .C() and .Fortran() when given double(0) or integer(0) (repost).

Dear R-devel, Duncan Murdoch suggested that I repost this if I don't get a response in a week, so here it is. The tests and the patches were on/against revision 59314, but I don't think that any of the commits since then affected the code in question. While tracking down some hard-to-reproduce bu

Re: [Rd] [patch] Behavior of .C() and .Fortran() when given double(0) or integer(0). --- Missing C file.

Hi, It looks like I didn't forget to attach it after all, but R-devel strips C source code files. Remove the ".txt" from the attached file to compile the test case. Best, Pavel On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 13:42 -0400, Pavel N. Krivitsk

Re: [Rd] [patch] Behavior of .C() and .Fortran() when given double(0) or integer(0).

Oops... Forgot to attach the dotC_NULL.c, the C source file for the test case. Pavel Krivitsky On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 13:42 -0400, Pavel N. Krivitsky wrote: > Dear R-devel, > > While tracking down some hard-to-reproduce bugs in a package I maintain, > I stumbled o

[Rd] [patch] Behavior of .C() and .Fortran() when given double(0) or integer(0).

Dear R-devel, While tracking down some hard-to-reproduce bugs in a package I maintain, I stumbled on a behavior change between R 2.15.0 and the current R-devel (or SVN trunk). In 2.15.0 and earlier, if you passed an 0-length vector of the right mode (e.g., double(0) or integer(0)) as one of the a

[Rd] Checking for user interrupt in a .C() call without without triggering a non-local exit.

Hi, An R package on which I am working makes a series of very computationally-intensive and complex .C() calls, that I would like to make interruptible. However, calling R_CheckUserInterrupt() causes a non-local exit, so the memory allocated by malloc() is never freed. The way the code is structur