On 10/10/2010 11:00 AM, David Winsemius wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Martin Morgan wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2010 07:11 AM, David Winsemius wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Lorenzo Isella wrote:
>>>
> I already offered the Biostrings package. It provides more robust
>>>
On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Martin Morgan wrote:
On 10/10/2010 07:11 AM, David Winsemius wrote:
On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Lorenzo Isella wrote:
I already offered the Biostrings package. It provides more robust
methods for string matching than does grepl. Is there a reason
that you
On 10/10/2010 07:11 AM, David Winsemius wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Lorenzo Isella wrote:
>
>>
>>> I already offered the Biostrings package. It provides more robust
>>> methods for string matching than does grepl. Is there a reason that you
>>> choose not to?
>>>
>>
>> Indeed that is
On 10/10/2010 04:11 PM, David Winsemius wrote:
length(matchPattern(fut_string, past_string)@start ) == 0
Wow, thanks a lot!
I am still testing this, but it looks like this is a good replacement
for grepl. Definitely, since I am not a life scientist even from afar by
training, this solution/an
On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Lorenzo Isella wrote:
I already offered the Biostrings package. It provides more robust
methods for string matching than does grepl. Is there a reason that
you
choose not to?
Indeed that is the way I should go for and I have installed the
package after som
5 matches
Mail list logo
