From krivitsky at stat.psu.edu  Sun Jul  1 23:17:13 2012
From: krivitsky at stat.psu.edu (Pavel N. Krivitsky)
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:17:13 -0400
Subject: [Rd] [patch] Behavior of .C() and .Fortran() when given
 double(0) or integer(0).
In-Reply-To: <20417.11242.289932.173647@max.nulle.part>
References: <1336153356.24356.332.camel@Navi.krivitsky.homeip.net>
	<4FB4C900.6070204@stats.ox.ac.uk>
	<1338051754.4646.165.camel@Navi.krivitsky.homeip.net>
	<D2C9AAAD-4B59-43DE-ACD8-3F722216EE89@r-project.org>
	<20417.11242.289932.173647@max.nulle.part>
Message-ID: <1341177433.4555.21.camel@Navi.krivitsky.homeip.net>

On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 14:15 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On 26 May 2012 at 14:00, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> | [...] the real answer is use .Call() instead.
> 
> Maybe Kurt could add something to that extent to the R FAQ ?

Since it looks like the 0-length -> invalid pointer behavior is here to
stay, I want to second this request. It had taken me a long time to
track mysterious behavior of my package down to this issue, and I think
it would be helpful for developers in the future to have some documented
behavior, even if the documentation said that the behavior was
undefined.

                      Thanks,
                      Pavel Krivitsky



[Rd] [patch] Behavior of .C() and .Fortran() when given double(0) or integer(0).
Pavel N. Krivitsky