Hello,
Why would you also post here when you posted on R-devel minutes ago.
This is not Rcpp specific.
Romain
Le 21/11/10 23:53, Janko Thyson a écrit :
Hi there,
is it possible to register fields as you can register methods with
getRefClass("Classname")$methods(.)?
I know that you should u
Hi there,
is it possible to register fields as you can register methods with
getRefClass("Classname")$methods(.)?
I know that you should usually give some thought on which fields you need
and hardcode them in the class def. But I'm playing around with dynamically
creating/extending sort of a temp
Le 21/11/10 21:59, Douglas Bates a écrit :
That's fine with me.
Done. I've also updated wls and RcppModules accordingly.
Sorry for the slow response. I'm down with a
cold or the flu today.
You replied in less than two hours. It does not really qualify as slow ...
Good luck with the cold.
That's fine with me. Sorry for the slow response. I'm down with a
cold or the flu today.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Romain Francois
wrote:
> Le 21/11/10 20:42, Andrew Redd a écrit :
>>
>> The init_2 is unnatural. I would prefer the new syntax. As I have to
>> code that is relying in the
Le 21/11/10 20:42, Andrew Redd a écrit :
The init_2 is unnatural. I would prefer the new syntax. As I have to
code that is relying in the init_2 at the moment I'm fine with
switching it out.
Great. I'll wait for Doug's go and switch them.
Does this mean that we will be able to expose
multip
The init_2 is unnatural. I would prefer the new syntax. As I have to
code that is relying in the init_2 at the moment I'm fine with
switching it out. Does this mean that we will be able to expose
multiple constructors?
-Andrew
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Romain Francois
wrote:
> Hello,
>
Hello,
I've just commited some code that will potentially make it simpler to
expose constructors.
Where previously we would do something like
.constructor( init_2() )
we can now do:
.ctor()
We probably don't want to keep both, so I'd like to keep the second
solution but to call it constru
Hola Marc,
On 21 November 2010 at 15:45, marc michalewicz wrote:
| Thanks Dirk
|
| for this fast and useful reply. I tested your example and it works for me
too, fine. But I am afraid I completely misunderstood the things - thx for
being so kind to call it "almost understand":
|
| Looking at
Thanks Dirk
for this fast and useful reply. I tested your example and it works for me too,
fine. But I am afraid I completely misunderstood the things - thx for being so
kind to call it "almost understand":
Looking at things from the application architecture point of view: I have an
existing
Marc,
On 21 November 2010 at 06:57, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| Basically, R itself is the main(). You never see that code. You simply write
| functions all confirming to
Typo: "conforming" is what I meant.
| SEXP myfunction(SEXP a, SEXP b, ...)
|
| which take one or more SEXP objects and re
On 21 November 2010 at 13:46, marc michalewicz wrote:
| Hi,
|
| I use R 2.12.0 on Fedora FC13 and experience a segmentatioin fault when using
a standard example from the artice "Rcpp: Seamless R and C++ integration" by D.
Eddelbuettel:
|
| When trying out this quite small and simple example:
|
Hi,
I use R 2.12.0 on Fedora FC13 and experience a segmentatioin fault when using a
standard example from the artice "Rcpp: Seamless R and C++ integration" by D.
Eddelbuettel:
When trying out this quite small and simple example:
#include
int main ()
{
SEXP x;
std::vector > v;
std::map
12 matches
Mail list logo
