Andy, Any of the options you mentioned (libRcpp.a, source, etc.) sound fine to me. If the GPL is a problem I am happy to change this to some other open source license (I'm not entirely comfortable with GPL, and used it because R uses it). I'm open to suggestions.
Dominick Andrew Garbutt wrote: > Dominick, > > Sorry, that's not quite what I was asking. I was asking more of a "best > practice" kind of question. My own C++ codes compile fine and are > accessible to R with some great #define magic. I was noting that the > Rcpp package has some generic classes to handle conversion of SEXP > structures to STL and back again. As I far as I can see, using them > would require that I compile the C++ code into a library and link to > that library. Or copy the code into my own code base, but doing would > restrict myself to the GPL, as it would be a derivative work?? (IANAL) > At this point I do not want to commit to any particular licensure for my > package. > > So, to sum up my "actual" question... > Is it better to create a libRcpp.a and link to that? Have a copy of the > Rcpp.cpp/.hpp files in my own code base compiling them directly? > Require that any particular R installation have the requirement that the > Rcpp package be installed prior? > > Thanks for your time, > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dominick Samperi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:30 PM > To: Andrew Finley > Cc: Andrew Garbutt; r-devel@r-project.org > Subject: Re: [Rd] Rcpp, best method for linking to > > > Hi Andy (and Andy), > > I'm not sure why there should be any licensing issues. R itself is > GPL-ed, > so I just followed this convention. > > Of course, you can do it yourself with extern "C" and all that. The > purpose of Rcpp.{cpp,hpp} is to enable you to write > readable code (for a C++ programmer) while hiding the error-prone > macro gymnastics that is required to fetch R parameters when using > the .Call interface. There is also a fair amount of type checking done > in the Rcpp package that relieves you of the trouble of putting many > checks in your R code. > > If you are using the older, simpler .C interface this may not be > important to you. But note that the same functionality is available > through Rcpp, with the added convenience that list item names > are not dropped like they are when you use the .C interface. > > Dominick > > Andrew Finley wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> Follow the suggestions for c++ in the Writing R Extensions document. >> Wrap your c++ code in extern "C"{}, include your classes in the >> > includes > >> (e.g., #include "myclass.h") and put the myclass.h and myclass.cpp in >> the src directory along with your other code. Then R CMD build ... and >> > R > >> CMD INSTALL ... This works for me. >> -Andy >> >> >> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 13:11 -0800, Andrew Garbutt wrote: >> >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> After a bit of reading I came across the Rcpp example package. There >>> are a few classes that I would like to use and I am not sure how best >>> > to > >>> include them in my own package. Is it best to compile it as an >>> independent library and link to it? Or is there some way to `require` >>> > it > >>> for my own package? Re-write using the code as an example (unsure >>> > how > >>> best to do this at this moment, as the Rcpp package is licensed under >>> the GPL v2 and I am unsure of the license that I wish to use for my >>> > own > >>> package.) Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> >>> ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
