Dear R developers, just a quick question: I noted that R_ParseVector () has gained an additional parameter (since SVN rev. 39999). Since R_ParseVector () is part of the public API, I'm wondering, whether this API change was intentional or not. Either way is fine with me, but in order to make sure the next release of RKWard will be compilable with R 2.5.0, I'd like to make sure, whether or not the change is here to stay. Regards Thomas Friedrichsmeier -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/attachments/20070117/fac8d584/attachment.bin
R_ParseVector API change
3 messages · Thomas Friedrichsmeier, Duncan Murdoch, Simon Urbanek
On 1/17/2007 12:53 PM, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
Dear R developers, just a quick question: I noted that R_ParseVector () has gained an additional parameter (since SVN rev. 39999). Since R_ParseVector () is part of the public API, I'm wondering, whether this API change was intentional or not. Either way is fine with me, but in order to make sure the next release of RKWard will be compilable with R 2.5.0, I'd like to make sure, whether or not the change is here to stay.
The change was accidental (I forgot that R_ParseVector was in the API when I made it), but I think it will stay. Setting the value of this parameter to R_NilValue gets the old behaviour. Setting it to some other SEXP will have that SEXP recorded as the srcfile attribute of source references. I think the description above is the level of detail of the implementation that it's safe to work with. The particular format of source references could change. Duncan Murdoch
Thomas,
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
Dear R developers, just a quick question: I noted that R_ParseVector () has gained an additional parameter (since SVN rev. 39999). Since R_ParseVector () is part of the public API, I'm wondering, whether this API change was intentional or not.
Yes, it was intentional (added support for keep.source I believe). Duncan, you may want to add the API change to NEWS - it's not mentioned there. Cheers, Simon