Hi Laurent, Robert, and others,
On 02/20/2013 01:33 PM, Laurent Gautier wrote:
On 2013-02-20 22:02, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Robert,
Nice to hear from you!
I'm just a little bit worried that if we put normalize() in
BiocGenerics without at the same time have a take it or leave it
policy, then
Hi Herve
I have absolutely no objections against 'normalize' in BiocGenerics, I think it
is a good idea.
However, the concept of a 'universal namespace' and that no package can mask
symbols defined in other packages I find objectionable. There is no
'redefining' of functions as you suggest
Is this not just an indication that normalize is now a poor choice of a
function name?
LEo
On 20 Feb 2013, at 16:14, Wolfgang Huber wrote:
Hi
is it clear that all these different functions (methods) share similar
semantics and enough (conceptually) of their interface?
Wouldn't the
Dear all,
Looking at the alphabetical list of functions/methods in BioGenerics I
have the feeling that all functions are really generic, i.e. general,
with the exception of function 'annotation' which in my opinion should
be part of BioBase as method for one or more of the BioBase classes.
Hi Robert,
Nice to hear from you!
I'm just a little bit worried that if we put normalize() in
BiocGenerics without at the same time have a take it or leave it
policy, then most of the authors of the 10 packages are likely going
to ignore that there is now a new normalize() in BiocGenerics. They
On 02/20/2013 01:02 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
...
Furthermore, the good citizens that modify their package to use the
normalize() in BiocGenerics will be in a situation worth than before
because, from an end user point of view, their normalize() function
(which is now a method attached to
On 2013-02-20 22:02, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Robert,
Nice to hear from you!
I'm just a little bit worried that if we put normalize() in
BiocGenerics without at the same time have a take it or leave it
policy, then most of the authors of the 10 packages are likely going
to ignore that there is
Hi Laurent, and maintainers of packages with a normalize() function,
On 02/15/2013 04:28 AM, Laurent Gatto wrote:
A quick (and incomplete) manual search using
http://search.bioconductor.jp/ suggest the following usage of
normalize:
As a function:
xps::normalize
codelink::normalize
Hi,
I have no objection and I am willing to support this generic in the
package codelink. I agree that it is better to wait for the next
release cycle so that we maintainers have enough time to make the
changes.
Thank you,
Diego
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Hervé Pagès hpa...@fhcrc.org
