On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Pavel Krivitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 21:31 +, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
>> I different extension is fine I think. I use .pmt (poor man's
>> templates) for something very similar.
>
> No, both .pmt and .inc produce an R CMD check warning. (The package
> its
On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 21:31 +, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
> I different extension is fine I think. I use .pmt (poor man's
> templates) for something very similar.
No, both .pmt and .inc produce an R CMD check warning. (The package
itself compiles correctly in either case.)
I different extension is fine I think. I use .pmt (poor man's
templates) for something very similar.
Gabor
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Pavel Krivitsky wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Since some C header files in a package I maintain have identical macro
> definitions (which have a different meanings
Dear All,
Since some C header files in a package I maintain have identical macro
definitions (which have a different meanings, since other macro
definitions differ), I tried to reduce code duplication to split the
common macros into their own files, which don't get #included directly
by any C file
