[R-pkg-devel] R_registerRoutines, etc.

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On 24 April 2017 at 10:45, Rolf Turner wrote:
| On 24/04/17 10:31, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 24 April 2017 at 10:18, Rolf Turner wrote:
| > | One more (I hope it's the last!) question:
| > |
| > | One of my subroutines has an argument of type *logical*.  There is no
| > | logical type in C.  So, since I am perforce using C-speak, I cannot
| > | change "void *" to "void logical".
| > |
| > | I have a (very vague) understanding that in C one uses variables of int
| > | type (taking the values 0, for FALSE, and 1, for TRUE) as logical variables.
| > |
| > | On that understanding I took a punt and replaced "void *" by "int *" for
| > | the logical type variable.  The package built and passed
| > |
| > |      "R CMD check --as-cran"
| > |
| > | so it seems that this is OK.  Is this the Right Thing To Do?  Are there
| > | any (obvious?) lurking perils?
| >
| > I think you are allowed to use C99 [1] which has it -- see eg
| >
| > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4159713/how-to-use-boolean-datatype-in-c
| >
| > Dirk
| >
| > [1] Section 1.6.4 opems with
| >
| >     1.6.4 Portable C and C++ code
| >     -----------------------------
| >
| >     Writing portable C and C++ code is mainly a matter of observing the
| >     standards (C99, C++98 or where declared C++11/14) and testing that
| >     extensions (such as POSIX functions) are supported.
| 
| Ah, but I'm *not* using C at all, I'm using Fortran.  So I think that 
| raising the possibility of using C99 is a communist fish[1].  I just 
| want to make sure that my (modified) init.c is syntactically correct and 

I would be surpised if init.c was Fortran. Anyway...

| robust for implementing the registration of my *Fortran* routines.

Dirk

-- 
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org