From tlumley@u.washington.edu  Sun Nov 10 21:36:58 2002
From: tlumley@u.washington.edu (Thomas Lumley)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Calling function with proto in Rinternals.h
In-Reply-To: <1036914144.21672.10.camel@ip68-6-78-9.sb.sd.cox.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.44.0211101330360.132942-100000@homer07.u.washington.edu>

On 9 Nov 2002, Timothy H. Keitt wrote:

> On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 11:57, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote:
> > "Timothy H. Keitt" <tkeitt@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> >
> > > Quick follow up question -- does reg.finalizer() use the "on exit"
> > > option. (If not, perhaps it could be added as a flag?)
> >
> > It doesn't, but it might be added. Patches will be considered. (But how
> > did you manage to use .Call on
> >
> > void R_RegisterFinalizerEx(SEXP s, SEXP fun, Rboolean onexit)
> >
> > ?? I thought all the arguments had to be SEXP in that interface.)

Horrible things will happen on a 64-bit machine, where Rboolean and SEXP
are different lengths, but on a 32bit machine the argument passing is
likely to work (for suitably restricted definitions of `work').  I'm more
impressed by the fact you could .Call a void function when .Call expects a
SEXP return.

	-thomas

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


Calling function with proto in Rinternals.h
Thomas Lumley