No Robert, in my opinion you did the right thing. You're right to expect the replacement operation to do the right thing and it is a bug that it doesn't work.
Kasper On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Robert Castelo <robert.cast...@upf.edu>wrote: > hi Kasper, > > you're right. i should have done this upfront, this was too much S4 magic > to be true :) > > cheers, > robert. > > > > On 1/10/14 5:14 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote: > >> Robert: The alternative to using exprs<- is to instantiate a new object, >> just copying the old phenodata. >> >> Kasper >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Levi Waldron < >> levi.wald...@hunter.cuny.edu >> >>> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Kasper Daniel Hansen < >>> kasperdanielhan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately, you may want to be careful about making it too robust >>>> (depending on what you mean). For example filtering methods could very >>>> well be seen as replacing one matrix with a smaller one. Not sure if >>>> these >>>> methods use exprs<-, but that is probably how I would do it. >>>> >>>> What would be better is if in the process of doing the replacement, the >>>> other slots are harmonized in a relevant way. That would require row >>>> names >>>> on the replacement matrix. >>>> >>>> I suspect I also have used exprs<- to change the number of rows of an >>> ExpressionSet during analyses, when there were no featureData. Not that I >>> mind changing, but it may not be unusual "out there." >>> >>> >>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel >> > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
