[Rcpp-devel] potential new way to expose constructors

[Romain Francois]

Le 21/11/10 21:59, Douglas Bates a écrit :
> That's fine with me.

Done. I've also updated wls and RcppModules accordingly.

> Sorry for the slow response.  I'm down with a
> cold or the flu today.

You replied in less than two hours. It does not really qualify as slow ...

Good luck with the cold.

> 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