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!
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!