[Rcpp-devel] question re: LdFlags, RcppLdFlags

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On 10 October 2013 at 04:02, Romain Francois wrote:
| Le 10/10/13 03:53, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
| > Ack.  If the set of functions is small and rarely changes, then registration
| > using R's mechanism is indeed fine. Worked so far for getting Jeff and Josh's
| > xts into RcppXts, but that hasn't really moved beyond proof of concept.

"proof of concept ... at the level of the RcppXts package" in the sense that
the package does not yet do much with the functions it imports.

| That is what Rcpp11 uses too and the unit test suite is big. This works.
| 
| Also used in Matrix, lme4.
| 
| That's a bit more than POC level.

Of course, I phrased this poorly and you promptly misunderstood. 

Registration of C routines has been documented well and used by lme4 and
Matrix for several years now.

But still a pain to declare 'by hand' for a bazillion functions.  I know you
luuv your macros, but you also know how a large part of the world thinks
about old-C-style macros.  But they get certain jobs done. 

Dirk

-- 
Dirk Eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com