tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?

Roger Koenker-3
I’m trying to sort out the consequences of adding registration for my quantreg package.
I’ve generated a quantreg_init.c file with the directive in the message title, and placed it
in my src directory.  The first issue is that 3 of the 20, or so registered functions have
the same name in fortran as the calling function in R.   This seems easy to fix.  More
puzzling is that R CMD check now reports that the fortran names of all the registered fortran
functions are “undocumented objects”.  Can someone point me to the officially sanctioned
way to deal with this:  presumably I don’t need to document them as if they were R functions.

Roger Koenker
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Department of Economics, UCL
London  WC1H 0AX.



        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?

Georgi Boshnakov
> ... reports that the fortran names of all the registered fortran functions are “undocumented objects”...  

Those symbols should not be exported. In quantreg v5.33, NAMESPACE has 'exportPattern(".")'. Maybe it is a good time to remove that and export explicitly the symbols that are meant for export.

Georgi Boshnakov


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:06:52 +0000
From: "Koenker, Roger W" <[hidden email]>
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Rd] tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I’m trying to sort out the consequences of adding registration for my quantreg package.
I’ve generated a quantreg_init.c file with the directive in the message title, and placed it
in my src directory.  The first issue is that 3 of the 20, or so registered functions have
the same name in fortran as the calling function in R.   This seems easy to fix.  More
puzzling is that R CMD check now reports that the fortran names of all the registered fortran
functions are “undocumented objects”.  Can someone point me to the officially sanctioned
way to deal with this:  presumably I don’t need to document them as if they were R functions.

Roger Koenker
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Department of Economics, UCL
London  WC1H 0AX.



        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  DIGESTED
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel


------------------------------

End of R-devel Digest, Vol 196, Issue 25
****************************************
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?

Roger Koenker-3
Thanks,  I was just coming to that conclusion and beginning to look for a way to make a list of
exportable objects.

Roger Koenker
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Department of Economics, UCL
London  WC1H 0AX.


On Jun 28, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Georgi Boshnakov <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

... reports that the fortran names of all the registered fortran functions are “undocumented objects”...

Those symbols should not be exported. In quantreg v5.33, NAMESPACE has 'exportPattern(".")'. Maybe it is a good time to remove that and export explicitly the symbols that are meant for export.

Georgi Boshnakov


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:06:52 +0000
From: "Koenker, Roger W" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
To: "[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
Subject: [Rd] tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?
Message-ID: <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I’m trying to sort out the consequences of adding registration for my quantreg package.
I’ve generated a quantreg_init.c file with the directive in the message title, and placed it
in my src directory.  The first issue is that 3 of the 20, or so registered functions have
the same name in fortran as the calling function in R.   This seems easy to fix.  More
puzzling is that R CMD check now reports that the fortran names of all the registered fortran
functions are “undocumented objects”.  Can someone point me to the officially sanctioned
way to deal with this:  presumably I don’t need to document them as if they were R functions.

Roger Koenker
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Department of Economics, UCL
London  WC1H 0AX.



[[alternative HTML version deleted]]



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> mailing list  DIGESTED
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel


------------------------------

End of R-devel Digest, Vol 196, Issue 25
****************************************


        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?

Duncan Murdoch-2
On 28/06/2019 6:27 a.m., Koenker, Roger W wrote:
> Thanks,  I was just coming to that conclusion and beginning to look for a way to make a list of
> exportable objects.

After library(quantreg), ls("package:quantreg") will list all the names
you currently export.  So

cat(ls("package:quantreg"), sep = ", ")

will print the list in a form suitable for including in the export()
directive in your NAMESPACE file.  Just delete the names that are meant
for internal use only.

Duncan Murdoch

>
> Roger Koenker
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> Department of Economics, UCL
> London  WC1H 0AX.
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Georgi Boshnakov <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> ... reports that the fortran names of all the registered fortran functions are “undocumented objects”...
>
> Those symbols should not be exported. In quantreg v5.33, NAMESPACE has 'exportPattern(".")'. Maybe it is a good time to remove that and export explicitly the symbols that are meant for export.
>
> Georgi Boshnakov
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:06:52 +0000
> From: "Koenker, Roger W" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: "[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Subject: [Rd] tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I’m trying to sort out the consequences of adding registration for my quantreg package.
> I’ve generated a quantreg_init.c file with the directive in the message title, and placed it
> in my src directory.  The first issue is that 3 of the 20, or so registered functions have
> the same name in fortran as the calling function in R.   This seems easy to fix.  More
> puzzling is that R CMD check now reports that the fortran names of all the registered fortran
> functions are “undocumented objects”.  Can someone point me to the officially sanctioned
> way to deal with this:  presumably I don’t need to document them as if they were R functions.
>
> Roger Koenker
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
> Department of Economics, UCL
> London  WC1H 0AX.
>
>
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> mailing list  DIGESTED
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of R-devel Digest, Vol 196, Issue 25
> ****************************************
>
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?

Roger Koenker-3
Thanks Georgi and Duncan, exports are now specified explicitly  and the  new package
is now on CRAN.

Roger Koenker
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Department of Economics, UCL
London  WC1H 0AX.


On Jun 28, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Duncan Murdoch <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

On 28/06/2019 6:27 a.m., Koenker, Roger W wrote:
Thanks,  I was just coming to that conclusion and beginning to look for a way to make a list of
exportable objects.

After library(quantreg), ls("package:quantreg") will list all the names you currently export.  So

cat(ls("package:quantreg"), sep = ", ")

will print the list in a form suitable for including in the export() directive in your NAMESPACE file.  Just delete the names that are meant for internal use only.

Duncan Murdoch

Roger Koenker
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Department of Economics, UCL
London  WC1H 0AX.
On Jun 28, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Georgi Boshnakov <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
... reports that the fortran names of all the registered fortran functions are “undocumented objects”...
Those symbols should not be exported. In quantreg v5.33, NAMESPACE has 'exportPattern(".")'. Maybe it is a good time to remove that and export explicitly the symbols that are meant for export.
Georgi Boshnakov
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:06:52 +0000
From: "Koenker, Roger W" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>>
To: "[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>>
Subject: [Rd] tools::package_native_routine_registration_skeleton?
Message-ID: <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I’m trying to sort out the consequences of adding registration for my quantreg package.
I’ve generated a quantreg_init.c file with the directive in the message title, and placed it
in my src directory.  The first issue is that 3 of the 20, or so registered functions have
the same name in fortran as the calling function in R.   This seems easy to fix.  More
puzzling is that R CMD check now reports that the fortran names of all the registered fortran
functions are “undocumented objects”.  Can someone point me to the officially sanctioned
way to deal with this:  presumably I don’t need to document them as if they were R functions.
Roger Koenker
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Department of Economics, UCL
London  WC1H 0AX.
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> mailing list  DIGESTED
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
------------------------------
End of R-devel Digest, Vol 196, Issue 25
****************************************
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel