On 29/03/17 20:32, Enrico Schumann wrote:
(inline)
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Rolf Turner writes:
On 28/03/17 04:21, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Rolf Turner wrote:
Is there any way to trap/detect the use of an optional argument called
"X" and thereby issue a more per
Tim,
What you're describing is a special case of the ALTREP framework/API that
Luke Tierney, Tomas Kalibera, and I are working on putting into R. See my
initial proposal to the DSC here:
https://www.r-project.org/dsc/2016/slides/customvectors.html and the
subsequent branch here: https://svn.r-proj
http://www.keittlab.org/
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On 03/29/2017 08:24 AM, Tim Keitt wrote:
>
>> I have a use case where I would like to create an SEXP around an existing
>> buffer that is managed by R, thus avoiding a copy operation.
>>
>
> What to you me
On 03/29/2017 11:04 AM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Tim,
On 03/29/2017 08:24 AM, Tim Keitt wrote:
I have a use case where I would like to create an SEXP around an existing
buffer that is managed by R, thus avoiding a copy operation.
What to you mean exactly by "an existing buffer managed by R"?
I
Hi Tim,
On 03/29/2017 08:24 AM, Tim Keitt wrote:
I have a use case where I would like to create an SEXP around an existing
buffer that is managed by R, thus avoiding a copy operation.
What to you mean exactly by "an existing buffer managed by R"?
If I have
something like:
void *p = (void*)
I have a use case where I would like to create an SEXP around an existing
buffer that is managed by R, thus avoiding a copy operation. If I have
something like:
void *p = (void*) RAW(PROTECT(Rf_allocVector(RAWSXP, n)));
... additional maniupulation ...
SEXP x = somefunc(SXPTYPE, n, p); //
I
(inline)
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Rolf Turner writes:
> On 28/03/17 04:21, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Rolf Turner wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any way to trap/detect the use of an optional argument called
>>> "X" and thereby issue a more perspicuous error message?
>>>
>>>
> Joris Meys
> on Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:19:14 +0200 writes:
> Thank you gents, I overlooked the subtle differences.
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Lukas Stadler
> wrote:
>> “typeof” is your friend here:
>>
>> > typeof(`[`)
>> [1] "special"
>> > ty
