Skip to content

Conversation

@DavisVaughan
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #1048

@eddelbuettel
Copy link
Member

eddelbuettel commented Mar 17, 2020

Thanks. I can assume you tested this R 3.3.* ? (I have some Docker containers here so I could spot check locally too.)

I am wondering if we should protect the inline para with a #define.

Edit: Never mind. Should be fine as is.

@DavisVaughan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yea, here is a {yardstick} build that previously failed, but now relies on this PR. Rcpp builds fine on an R 3.3.* build (and 3.2.*).

https://github.com/tidymodels/yardstick/runs/514069086?check_suite_focus=true#step:8:97

@eddelbuettel
Copy link
Member

"We apologize for any invoncenience caused." Always sorry about breakage but hey, it was your colleague 😎 and we did ask for extensive pre-release tests. But I know how it goes -- CRAN releases just matter more.

@eddelbuettel eddelbuettel merged commit dda407a into RcppCore:master Mar 17, 2020
@DavisVaughan DavisVaughan deleted the bugfix/list6 branch March 17, 2020 15:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rcpp uses Rf_list6(), which was added around R 3.4

2 participants