search for: doublethi

...t the interface. It has its own learning curve, but I think | it is easier than using the low-level code that you need to work with .Call. Thanks for that vote, and I second that. And these days the learning is a lot flatter than it was a decade ago: R> Rcpp::cppFunction("NumericVector doubleThis(NumericVector x) { return(2*x); }") R> doubleThis(c(1,2,3,21,-4)) [1] 2 4 6 42 -8 R> That defined, compiled, loaded and run/illustrated a simple function. Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org

...earning curve, but I think | > | it is easier than using the low-level code that you need to work with .Call. | | > Thanks for that vote, and I second that. | | > And these days the learning is a lot flatter than it was a decade ago: | | > R> Rcpp::cppFunction("NumericVector doubleThis(NumericVector x) { return(2*x); }") | > R> doubleThis(c(1,2,3,21,-4)) | > [1] 2 4 6 42 -8 | > R> | | > That defined, compiled, loaded and run/illustrated a simple function. | | > Dirk | | Indeed impressive, ... and it also works with integer vectors | something al...

..., but I think >> | it is easier than using the low-level code that you need to work with .Call. > >> Thanks for that vote, and I second that. > >> And these days the learning is a lot flatter than it was a decade ago: > >> R> Rcpp::cppFunction("NumericVector doubleThis(NumericVector x) { return(2*x); }") >> R> doubleThis(c(1,2,3,21,-4)) >> [1] 2 4 6 42 -8 >> R> > >> That defined, compiled, loaded and run/illustrated a simple function. > >> Dirk > > Indeed impressive, ... and it also works with integer vect...

...has its own learning curve, but I think > | it is easier than using the low-level code that you need to work with .Call. > Thanks for that vote, and I second that. > And these days the learning is a lot flatter than it was a decade ago: > R> Rcpp::cppFunction("NumericVector doubleThis(NumericVector x) { return(2*x); }") > R> doubleThis(c(1,2,3,21,-4)) > [1] 2 4 6 42 -8 > R> > That defined, compiled, loaded and run/illustrated a simple function. > Dirk Indeed impressive, ... and it also works with integer vectors something also not 100% trivial...

...than using the low-level code that you need to work >>> with .Call. >> >>> Thanks for that vote, and I second that. >> >>> And these days the learning is a lot flatter than it was a decade ago: >> >>> R> Rcpp::cppFunction("NumericVector doubleThis(NumericVector x) { >>> return(2*x); }") >>> R> doubleThis(c(1,2,3,21,-4)) >>> [1] 2 4 6 42 -8 >>> R> >> >>> That defined, compiled, loaded and run/illustrated a simple function. >> >>> Dirk >> >> Indeed imp...

Thanks! I went through the online posts which supports the power of .Call over .C. But my probably naive question is why does this work for my code with R but not R-devel? And another question is related to using .Call. Based on the manual page, I do not need to change the function parameters when using .Call. So I can run like this: .Call("sppedUp", D, S, pD, pS, nrow(D), as.integer(N),