Your original question is predicated on the notion that people are
"disseminating misleading information about" you, with this phrase: "a
small portion of the code is based on code written during 2005 and
2006 by Dominick Samperi". While it may be difficult to qualify
contributions to a joint proj
Dominick,
My 2 cents:
Nobody gets to decide when something is dead; it's more a consensus
view driven by everyone who uses or contributes. Looking back at the
RcppTemplate archive, I think that characterization is pretty
accurate: http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/cxxPack/Ancestry/.
My two cents:
That seems sensible; an alternative view would be to say that sugar is
in the same vein as the rest of Rcpp, might regularly be used in the
same code, and the goal should be to keep everything as simple as
possible (i.e. one library). I, for one, don't see the need to
separate them.
