Full_Name: stephen eglen Version: 1.0.0 OS: Unix (OSF/1) Submission from: (NULL) (129.215.238.26) Hi, in the documentation `Writing R Extensions', the section 3.6.1 (handling the effects of garbage collection) has the following typo: Protecting a SEXP pointer protexts ... Should that be `protects'? -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Documentatio: typo in Writing R Extensions (PR#557)
3 messages · Stephen Eglen, Brian Ripley, Peter Dalgaard
On Tue, 30 May 2000 stephen@anc.ed.ac.uk wrote:
Full_Name: stephen eglen Version: 1.0.0 OS: Unix (OSF/1) Submission from: (NULL) (129.215.238.26) Hi, in the documentation `Writing R Extensions', the section 3.6.1 (handling the effects of garbage collection) has the following typo: Protecting a SEXP pointer protexts ... Should that be `protects'?
It is already `protects' in the current sources (R-devel): I didn't check 1.0.1. Not sure why you submitted this twice (PR#557 and PR#558)?
Brian D. Ripley, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
stephen@anc.ed.ac.uk writes:
Full_Name: stephen eglen Version: 1.0.0 OS: Unix (OSF/1) Submission from: (NULL) (129.215.238.26) Hi, in the documentation `Writing R Extensions', the section 3.6.1 (handling the effects of garbage collection) has the following typo: Protecting a SEXP pointer protexts ... Should that be `protects'?
Yup. Already fixed in the development version. Actually "SEXP pointer" is a bit like "ATM machine". SEXPs are pointers to SEXPREC, so is a SEXP pointer a (SEXPREC **) ? Besides, one is not protecting the pointer but the object it points to (by putting a pointer to it on the protection stack). This is a common misconception: PROTECT(p); ... p = AllocSexp(....); will not protect the new value of p. You need PROTECT(p); ... UNPROTECT(1); PROTECT(p = AllocSexp(....)); Hmm. Looks like the whole section needs going over. The stuff about "ensuring that the pointer is updated" is bogus too (it is VECRECs that move, not SEXPRECs). And the description of UNPROTECT_PTR is vacuous at best.
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._