This is my opinion. I think the class should have a very general
structure. Depending on the assay, users may be particularly interested in
the original case described by Herve (alignments on opposite strands, same
chromosome), but I dont think it should be enforced.
We have first(), last(), sec
Thanks for the clarification , Hervé!
That makes sense to me! I prefer option b and c.
Best,
Julie
> On Jul 5, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
>
> Hi Julie,
>
>> On 07/05/2016 01:03 PM, Zhu, Lihua (Julie) wrote:
>> Dear Herve,
>>
>> Thank you so much for the detailed explanation and qu
Hi Julie,
On 07/05/2016 01:03 PM, Zhu, Lihua (Julie) wrote:
Dear Herve,
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation and quick fix!
When fusion occurs, the 2 alignments in a pair could be on different
chromosomes. Not sure what is the best way to handle this situation. If
set seqnames to *,
Dear Herve,
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation and quick fix!
When fusion occurs, the 2 alignments in a pair could be on different
chromosomes. Not sure what is the best way to handle this situation. If
set seqnames to *, then the mapping location is lost. Maybe set seqnames
to one of
On 07/05/2016 05:01 AM, Christian Arnold wrote:
Hi,
I am receiving the same error message, but under different conditions,
and I don't know how to fix it. If anyone has an idea, much appreciated!
Here is my setup:
1) R Under development (unstable) (2016-01-06 r69881) (3.3.0)
This is from bef
Hi,
I am receiving the same error message, but under different conditions,
and I don't know how to fix it. If anyone has an idea, much appreciated!
Here is my setup:
1) R Under development (unstable) (2016-01-06 r69881) (3.3.0)
Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit)
Running under: Ubuntu 14.04.
