[Rcpp-devel] Armor, Shield and Shelter.

[Kevin Ushey]

I agree with Dale; it would be good to see these functions in Rcpp.

-Kevin

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Smith, Dale (Norcross)
<Dale.Smith at fiserv.com> wrote:
> Romain,
>
> I don't think I have any use for your proposed code at this time. However, I would like to say that reducing the number of macro calls is a worthy goal. My own attitude is "build it and they will use it".
>
> Dale Smith, Ph.D.
> Senior Financial Quantitative Analyst
> Financial & Risk Management Solutions
> Fiserv
> Office: 678-375-5315
> www.fiserv.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rcpp-devel-bounces at r-forge.wu-wien.ac.at [mailto:rcpp-devel-bounces at r-forge.wu-wien.ac.at] On Behalf Of Romain Francois
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:42 AM
> To: Dirk Eddelbuettel
> Cc: Rcpp-devel at r-forge.wu-wien.ac.at
> Subject: Re: [Rcpp-devel] Armor, Shield and Shelter.
>
> Le 11/10/13 13:26, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
>>
>> Romain,
>>
>> On 11 October 2013 at 13:03, Romain Francois wrote:
>> | Anyway, I'd like to propose adding Shield, Armor and Shleter to Rcpp.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> | This is a non disruptive proposal as the template classes I propose
>> | don't interract with the rest of the code. We might not use them in
>> | Rcpp, but we should. There are currently 155 calls to UNPROTECT in
>> | the .h and .cpp of Rcpp. That is that many macro calls we could get rid of.
>>
>> (UN)PROTECT calls in code internal to Rcpp are less of a worry (at
>> least on the user list);
>
> Sure. I'll make my case in the appropriate channel if we decide to add the feature.
>
>> another question is how often Rcpp users need to resort to this in
>> their code, and how often it would help?  I don't have a good idea.
>
> They fit perfectly in what I do with dplyrRcpp. This replaces the usual reflex of "I can't use an api class so i'll just use PROTECT/UNPROTECT"
>
> We can get an idea using some grepping for UNPROTECT in packages that depend on Rcpp.
>
>> And OTOH as this seems to non-disruptive and orthogonal to existing
>> code, why not?
>
> It is. That would just be 3 template class, all using inline functions.
> The code produced by the compiler should be equivalent to using PROTECT/UNPROTECT ...
>
> The code written by the developper will be nicer.
>
>> And the names are very cute indeed. I'd say go for it.
>>
>> Thanks,  Dirk
>
> Kudos to http://thesaurus.com/browse/protector
>
> I still want to see comments from users.
>
> One thing I'm not certain about is the interface of Shelter, We might be able to make something more natural.
>
> --
> Romain Francois
> Professional R Enthusiast
> +33(0) 6 28 91 30 30
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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