OTOH introducing a "straight" subclass only to define one specialized
method on it (the "normalize" method in this case) might not be worth
it since there is a cost for such class, even if that cost is minimal:
a cost for the user (one new container/constructor to deal with) and a
cost for the developer (e.g. multiplication of coerce methods).
On the plus side, a straight subclass would make it easier to solve the
same problem for other generics. For example, let's say that csaw and
swings both defined the estimateDispersions() method for the SE class.
If we decided to use dual dispatch, then the estimateDispersions()
generic would also have to be changed to have an additional argument.
This would not be necessary if the two packages set up their own
straight subclasses and defined S4 methods for each subclass.
It is slightly annoying, though, to have to define something like a
csawDataSet class and its constructor, even if the constructor is just a
trivial wrapper around the SE constructor. Ah well.
[Interestingly the scran package defines a default "normalize" method
(i.e. a normalize,ANY method)].
Yes - uh - I got too excited with S4 methods, and things got out of
hand. I've been pruning out some of the sillier definitions.
- Aaron
On 04/26/2016 03:03 PM, Aaron Lun wrote:
Yes, but "monkeyBars" doesn't have quite the same pithiness for a
package name.
Anyway, the dual dispatch mechanism sounds most interesting. I assume
that means we'd have to define some sort of base "normalizeParam" class,
and then derive "csawNormParam" and "swingsNormParam" subclasses, so
that specific methods can be defined for each signature.
- Aaron
Martin Morgan wrote:
On 04/26/2016 05:28 PM, Michael Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Martin Morgan
<martin.mor...@roswellpark.org> wrote:
On 04/26/2016 04:47 PM, Michael Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Aaron Lun<a...@wehi.edu.au>
wrote:
...
BiocGenerics. However, if some other hypothetical package
(I'll call it
"swings", for argument's sake) were to define a normalize()
method with a
...
I like the dual dispatch method quite a bit (but wonder why we get
several
swings but only one csaw? Maybe a csaw implies two participants
[though I
think I once in a while csaw-ed alone], so a singular csaw and a
pair of
swings balance out?), partly because it's very easy to extend
(write another
method) and the second argument can be either lightweight or
parameterized.
I could go along with the dual dispatch. "Swings" is short for "Set of
swings". Usually, there are several swings in a row, but only one
see-saw.
Googling for "how many swings per see-saw" took me to
https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/108601/playgrnd.pdf
where it is apparent that swings are much more dangerous than see-saws
(e.g., 51 matches for "swing" versus 4 for "see-saw"; "Swings ... were
involved in about 19 ... percent of injuries ... See-saws accounted
for about three percent"; "Homemade rope, tire, or tree swings were
also involved in a number of hanging deaths" [no mention of death by
see-saw]).
I think for the sake of our users, especially our younger users, we do
not want to consider swings, or even methods on swings, further.
Martin
This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the
employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the
intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your
computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
_______________________________________________
Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
