[Rcpp-devel] Sugar

Andrew Redd amredd at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 16:00:43 CET 2010


Doesn't sugar require Rcpp vectors, which encapsulate R SEXP vectors?  If
that is the case you really cannot separate them at all since there is a
direct dependency on R.

-Andrew

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Shane Conway <shane.conway at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.  They're very tightly coupled.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Dominick Samperi <djsamperi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Comments on Sugar...
> >
> > Rcpp sugar seems to be an enhancement for C++ more than an interface
> > function,
> > so wouldn't it make sense to maintain it as a separate C++ class library?
> > More generally, it would be useful to know what portions of Rcpp can
> > function without the R engine running. This can be determined by
> > trial and error, but it might be helpful if the boundary was more
> > clearly defined. Another possible advantage is clients could link only
> > against code that they really need.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dominick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rcpp-devel mailing list
> > Rcpp-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
> > https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Rcpp-devel mailing list
> Rcpp-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/rcpp-devel/attachments/20101101/34fe5b30/attachment.htm>


More information about the Rcpp-devel mailing list