Skip to content

cpp11::function does not protect its underlying SEXP #294

Closed
@paleolimbot

Description

@paleolimbot

Perhaps this was an intentional design decision; however, the behaviour was surprising to me since the other cpp11::<wrapper around an sexp> do this. Maybe it's too expensive to protect here, or maybe just add a note to the documentation? Happy to PR either of those in or close if this behaviour is intentional!

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions