[Rcpp-devel] Local .h files and Rcpp attributes
Romain Francois
romain at r-enthusiasts.com
Sun Oct 20 10:39:28 CEST 2013
Le 19/10/13 22:06, JJ Allaire a écrit :
> For it to actually work though we'd need to modify Makevars as well (as
> Romain pointed out) so that the RcppExports.cpp could see the include
> file.
IMO, R should do this. R should recognize that a package has a
inst/include directory and automatically set the -I flag.
Maybe it is something that can be negociated with the core team.
> This might get trickly. My thought was that we should either
> generate a fully working solution or failing that generation enough
> pointers/documentation to get most users over the hump.
>
> J
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org
> <mailto:edd at debian.org>> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 October 2013 at 15:40, JJ Allaire wrote:
> |
> | Maybe you could follow the example of Rcpp.package.skeleton()
> and just drop
> | an empty yet amply commented file there? By "being there"
> users have a
> | better chance of stumbling over it :)
> |
> |
> | Since this would involve creating a new directory (inst/include)
> perhaps I
> | could instead emit comments at the top of RcppExports.cpp
> explaining the
> | mechanism?
>
> True, but maybe I'd still go for it. inst/include/ is after all the
> place
> via which a any package foo can provide its headers to another
> package bar
> which simply adds 'LinkingTo: foo'.
>
> Currently, the 'cost' of attributes is one extra RcppExports.R, one
> RcppExports.cpp and we'd add a new (small, few lines with comments)
> header
> file in a new directory. Seems fair to me -- but entirely your call.
>
> Restraint in not cluttering user systems is also a good thing. We'd
> be back
> to the need for more/better documentation though.
>
> Dirk
>
> --
> Dirk Eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org <mailto:edd at debian.org> |
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
>
>
--
Romain Francois
Professional R Enthusiast
+33(0) 6 28 91 30 30
More information about the Rcpp-devel
mailing list