[Rcpp-devel] potential new way to expose constructors

Douglas Bates bates at stat.wisc.edu
Sun Nov 21 21:59:23 CET 2010


That's fine with me.  Sorry for the slow response.  I'm down with a
cold or the flu today.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Romain Francois
<romain at r-enthusiasts.com> wrote:
> Le 21/11/10 20:42, Andrew Redd a écrit :
>>
>> 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.
>
> Great. I'll wait for Doug's go and switch them.
>
>> Does this mean that we will be able to expose
>> multiple constructors?
>
> definitely. as before, but with the new syntax:
>
> .constructor<double,double>()
> .constructor<int>()
>
> ... etc ...
>
>> -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