[Rd] R strings, null-terminated or size delimited?
guillaume.yziquel at citycable.ch
Sun Nov 22 01:44:22 CET 2009
Duncan Murdoch a écrit :
>> I believe I should. I'd like the OCaml / R binding to be closely knit
>> to R internals. One reason would be for speed, the other being that
>> I'd like to make use of camlp4 to write syntax extensions to mix OCaml
>> and R syntax. It's therefore important for me not to rely on the R
>> interpreter to be active when building R values. Or when marshaling R
>> values via OCaml. There are numerous other issues aside this one.
> You are probably not going to be able to do that. Take your example of
> the promise below: to evaluate a promise, you need to evaluate the
> expression attached to it in the R interpreter. (This is discussed in
> the R Language Definition.)
> You can put probably put together simple R objects like integer arrays
> without having R running, but anything substantial isn't going to be
> Duncan Murdoch
That's precisely the issue. I want to map a functional language to a
functional language. And keep the same evaluation semantics. I do not
(yet?) see why it should not be feasible.
If this is done properly, OCaml could then compile R code natively. That
would be really nice. There would be other advantages in integrating the
two languages cleanly.
So, taking the example of promises, I need to map it to its OCaml
semantic equivalent, which seems to be a Lazy.t structure. That doesn't
seem (yet) unfeasible.
Thank you for your pointer to the R Language Definition. Starting by R
Internals was perhaps a bit brutal.
All the best,
More information about the R-devel