Thank you. > One place where one might think of using R6 is in the implementation of a > mutable data model underlying a GUI like a Shiny app. > If mutable semantics > are required, consider using S4 reference classes, as they offer more > features than R6 and will integrate > directly with Bioconductor S4 classes.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that it is fine to use Reference classes (mutable semantics) in Bioconductor. A GUI is one clear place for this. However, what about a large dataset that is subject to progressive analysis with various fields updated as the analysis proceeds? The typical Bioconductor approach (as far as I have seen) is to call a method defined for an S4 functional class that produces a new object of the same class, with the result assigned to the same name as the original object. For a project considered in isolation, it wouldn't be unreasonable to use a Reference class for this instead, but that's not what I'm asking. My question is about the standards and approach that Bioconductor has agreed on - to ensure consistency. Is a Reference Class permissible in this situation? If not, case closed. If they are permitted, I would suggest that R6 semantics are consistent with Reference Class semantics, but with the added benefit of private members and "active bindi ngs" (they look like fields, but call a function). This is nice and simple (for the creator and user of the class), but if not desired (for consistency etc.), then I presume Reference Classes will do fine. _______________________________________________ Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
