[Rcpp-devel] Sugar

[Shane Conway]

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
>
>