[Rcpp-devel] potential new way to expose constructors

Andrew Redd amredd at gmail.com
Sun Nov 21 20:42:51 CET 2010


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
<romain at r-enthusiasts.com> wrote:
> 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<double,double>() )
>
> we can now do:
>
> .ctor<double,double>()
>
> We probably don't want to keep both, so I'd like to keep the second solution
> but to call it constructor, so that we will do:
>
> .constructor<double,double>()
>
> Is this ok for everybody ? I guess this is only mainly relevant for Doug,
> Andrew and John anyway at the moment :-)
>
> Romain
>
> --
> Romain Francois
> Professional R Enthusiast
> +33(0) 6 28 91 30 30
> http://romainfrancois.blog.free.fr
> |- http://bit.ly/9VOd3l : ZAT! 2010
> |- http://bit.ly/c6DzuX : Impressionnism with R
> `- http://bit.ly/czHPM7 : Rcpp Google tech talk on youtube
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


More information about the Rcpp-devel mailing list