On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Simon Urbanek
wrote:
> Gábor,
>
> On Feb 8, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > is there a caveat in redefining .Call in a package? (Apart from the
> > performance hit of the extra function call.)
> >
>
> Why don't you just do s/\.Call/myC
Gábor,
On Feb 8, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> is there a caveat in redefining .Call in a package? (Apart from the
> performance hit of the extra function call.)
>
Why don't you just do s/\.Call/myCall/g in R/* instead? That would be a bit
less dangerous in case you fo
Hi All,
is there a caveat in redefining .Call in a package? (Apart from the
performance hit of the extra function call.)
I want to execute a check every time I call back to C, and this seems to be
the easiest solution, instead of modifying all functions of the package. It
also seems to be a good
Thanks to Duncan and all who responded.
I agree that the algebraic set rules do not allow for indistinguishable
elements; I must have been deeply immersed in quantum fermions when I
wrote "strictly" rather than "less" in front of "algebraic style.
I'll clean up my code (so that intersect() r
