[Rcpp-devel] changes in Rcpp today

Dirk Eddelbuettel edd at debian.org
Tue Dec 29 23:19:55 CET 2009

On 29 December 2009 at 22:51, Romain François wrote:
| > That's not bad. Parts of me find the Rcpp::RObject combination too long. I
| > guess I will get used to it.  Should we should for Rcpp::RObj given that ...
| Ah. I won't complain if you change it.

Let's sleep over it for a day. I like more compact, but I also dislike ugly
words.  But maybe Rcpp::RObj is indeed a keeper.  Or maybe even Rcpp:SExp or
Rcpp::RExp a la Rserve's client code.

| > And that is why we should release as 0.7.1 (fine by me) or 0.8.0 (also
| > defebnsible ASAP).
| It's all yours, I need some sleep now.

I seem to be getting a cold, and I am on the hook for a contributing a new
GPU-based Mersenne Twister RNG to the gpuTools package. 

| This is weird. I did not see that. The only reason the file is there 
| (empty file) is for the Makefile to be used. I'll come up with something.

That would be nice. I would still be in favour of tossing out all that
vignette business and just doing tests the GG/MM/RWiki way.  If you get the
other stuff to behave, fine.

| > All of these can be delayed!   There can be (should be) many small
| > releases. I don't like our RProtoBuf release management (== no release yet!)
| > all that much.
| Very true. I've discovered some bugs as I started to work in unit tests, 
| which tells me more are needed, but yes we need to release this beast.

Even with warts and missing tests it has a ton of cool functionality. We
should release.  

Again, kudos and thanks for the all the work.  Now get some sleep :)


Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.

More information about the Rcpp-devel mailing list