> There are tradeoffs. As demonstrated above, the pipe is clearly
> inferior in that it is doing a lot of complicated stuff under the
> hood, and when you try to traceback() through the call stack you have
> to sift through all that complicated stuff. That's a pretty big
> drawback in my opinion.
Hello all,
The fasta (twobit files) for release-87 and release-88 have been added to
AnnotationHub and are currently available in Bioc3.6 (development) with
AnnotationHub (<= 2.9.0):
> library(AnnotationHub)
> hub = AnnotationHub()
updating metadata: retrieving 1 resource
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Antonin Klima wrote:
> Thanks for the answers,
>
> I’m aware of the ‘.’ option, just wanted to give a very simple example.
>
> But the lapply ‘…' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me.
>
> What do you mean by messing up
Dear Bioconductor developers,
What's the proper way of applying bugfixes to both the 3.5 release branch and
the devel branch?
Should I simply commit the same things twice?
Kind regards,
Roel Janssen
--
De informatie
Thanks for the answers,
I’m aware of the ‘.’ option, just wanted to give a very simple example.
But the lapply ‘…' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me.
What do you mean by messing up the call stack. As far as I understand it,
piping should translate into same code as
Dear mailing list,
We created an updated version of our package "anota", which will run under a
new name "anota2seq".
We would like to update/replace the anota package and also change the name. If
we update the "anota" package using the SVN, will that also change the name of
the "anota"
Dear Bioconductor team,
I am the maintainer of RnaSeqSampleSize package. I am going to make some slides
to introduce my packages on Bioconductor. Do you have any other download stats
besides the number of downloads, such as downloading from city/country list, IP
address list? I am going to