Tests and examples are different things. The fact that your example runs
only means that your code does not bomb on execution and not that it runs
correctly. Plus, the code in examples is meant as an aid to the user; a way
to help them understand how to use your code. Proper tests are there
On 1/18/2011 8:44 AM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Claudia Beleiteswrote:
On 01/18/2011 01:13 AM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Spencer Graves<
spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com> wrote:
Hi, Dominick, et al.:
Demanding co
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Claudia Beleites wrote:
> On 01/18/2011 01:13 AM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Spencer Graves<
>> spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Dominick, et al.:
>>>
>>>
>>> Demanding complete unit test suites with
.org
[mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves
Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Dominick Samperi
Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
For me, a major strength of R is the package development
process. I've found this
ailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves
Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Dominick Samperi
Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
For me, a major strength of R is the package development
process. I've found this
rom: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org
[mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Graves
Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Dominick Samperi
Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
For me, a major strength of R is the package development
p
ry?
Paul
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:
r-devel-boun...@r-project.org]
On Behalf Of Spencer Graves
Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Dominick Samperi
Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
For me,
ocess does to help insure
>> consistent documentation and
>> organization, and about how this nudging might be extended to the C/C++
>> part
>> of a package.
>>
>> Dominick
>>
>>
>> Spencer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
n...@r-project.org]
On Behalf Of Spencer Graves
Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Dominick Samperi
Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
For me, a major strength of R is the package development
process. I've found this so valuable
> -Original Message-
>> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org]
>> On Behalf Of Spencer Graves
>> Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM
>> To: Dominick Samperi
>> Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel
>&
ests/ directory?
Paul
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf Of Spencer Graves
Sent: January 17, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Dominick Samperi
Cc: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
: Patrick Leyshock; r-devel@r-project.org; Dirk Eddelbuettel
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
For me, a major strength of R is the package development
process. I've found this so valuable that I created a Wikipedia entry
by that name and made additions to a Wikipedia entry on "software
heir
>> list of priorities.
>>
>> The bottom like is that R is an adaptor ("glue") language like Lisp that
>> makes it easy to mix and
>> match functions (using classes and generic functions), many of which are
>> written in C (or C++
>> or Fortr
lations you will have to do the C/C++ programming yourself (or
call a library
that somebody else has written).
Dominick
----- Original Message
From: Dirk Eddelbuettel
To: Patrick Leyshock
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 10:13:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
On 17 Janu
C/C++ programming yourself (or
call a library
that somebody else has written).
Dominick
>
>>
>> - Original Message
>> From: Dirk Eddelbuettel
>> To: Patrick Leyshock
>> Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
>> Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 10:13:36 AM
>
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM, David Henderson wrote:
> I think we're also forgetting something, namely testing. If you write your
> routine in C, you have placed additional burden upon yourself to test your C
> code through unit tests, etc. If you write your code in R, you still need the
> un
secondarily, coders...
Dave H
- Original Message
From: Dirk Eddelbuettel
To: Patrick Leyshock
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 10:13:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
On 17 January 2011 at 09:13, Patrick Leyshock wrote:
| A question, please about development of R packages
I am working with scientists who are not primarily, or even
secondarily, coders...
Dave H
- Original Message
From: Dirk Eddelbuettel
To: Patrick Leyshock
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 10:13:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Rd] R vs. C
On 17 January 2011 at 09:13, Patrick Ley
On 17 January 2011 at 09:13, Patrick Leyshock wrote:
| A question, please about development of R packages:
|
| Are there any guidelines or best practices for deciding when and why to
| implement an operation in R, vs. implementing it in C? The "Writing R
| Extensions" recommends "working in inte
On 17/01/2011 12:41 PM, Patrick Burns wrote:
Everyone has their own utility
function. Mine is if the boredom
of waiting for the pure R function
to finish is going to out-weight the
boredom of writing the C code.
Another issue is that adding C code
increases the hassle of users who might
want th
Everyone has their own utility
function. Mine is if the boredom
of waiting for the pure R function
to finish is going to out-weight the
boredom of writing the C code.
Another issue is that adding C code
increases the hassle of users who might
want the code to run on different
architectures.
On
21 matches
Mail list logo
