Le 04/05/10 18:24, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
On 4 May 2010 at 18:02, Romain Francois wrote:
| Le 04/05/10 15:18, Douglas Bates a écrit :
|> As I understand it, we are still at risk of code in the R API that we
|> call in turn calling Rf_error, right? That will have the same effect
|> of le
On 4 May 2010 at 18:02, Romain Francois wrote:
| Le 04/05/10 15:18, Douglas Bates a écrit :
| > As I understand it, we are still at risk of code in the R API that we
| > call in turn calling Rf_error, right? That will have the same effect
| > of leaving the C++ exception stack in an inconsistent
Le 04/05/10 15:18, Douglas Bates a écrit :
After following some of the discussion in that thread I was going to
ask exactly the question that you just answered.
Please note that I discovered the issue with the thread so what I say
might not reflect what would someone with Simon's experience kn
After following some of the discussion in that thread I was going to
ask exactly the question that you just answered.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Romain Francois
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> One crucial nugget of information from somewhere in this R-devel thread:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.
Hello,
One crucial nugget of information from somewhere in this R-devel thread:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.r.devel/24284
When using c++ --- and therefore Rcpp --- it is not safe to call
Rf_error to stop the c function because error seems to bypass c++
unwinding and might leave
