R devel - Jan 2007 - R_ParseVector API change

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

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