Re: Re: igraph / R-interface

[Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Gábor Csárdi <csardi.gabor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why tweak it? Why isn't the included library good?
>>
>> Because I use libigraph with external blas / lapack and lots of
>> options which are not the one used in the r interface.
>
> You can build the shared library in the R package with external
> blas/lapack, and your lots of options, as well.

I could not figure that out, there were no instructions on how to do that...

>> So the name is confusing, it should have been named something else to
>> avoid people thinking they could get similar result from the R
>> interface and from the C interface.
>
> Maybe, but having two products with 99% common code and one named
> 'foo', the other named 'bar' would be equally confusing, no?

You are the upstream packager, as such you know that only the rand
function differ from the two source package.

Now as a debian packager, as I have to explain why I am polluting
debian disk space with two packages which differ with a single ifdef
on the c-rand() versus the r-rand() function.

This is not clear to me why the rand is so burried down in the igraph
library. The rand function should be a parameter, so that the
R-interface would use the r-rand() function, the python-interface
would use whatever python-rand function is, java would use
whatever-rand function it needs. But I am not going to triplicate the
source code of igraph for every single target language:

- python
- R
- java (why not?)
- ruby (why not?)
...


Does this make sense ?

Thanks,
-- 
Mathieu