On 03/18/2016 03:28 PM, Michael Lawrence wrote:> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org > <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Short story > ----------- > > setClassUnion("ArrayLike", "array") > > showClass("ArrayLike") # no slot > > setClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", > contains="ArrayLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > showClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # 2 slots!! > > That doesn't seem right. > > Long story > ---------- > > S4 provides at least 3 ways to create a little class hierarchy > like this: > > FooLike ............. virtual class with no slot > ^ ^ > | | > foo anotherfoo ..... 2 concrete subclasses > > (1) The "standard" way: define FooLike first, then foo and anotherfoo > as subclasses of FooLike: > > setClass("FooLike") > > setClass("foo", > contains="FooLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > setClass("anotherfoo", > contains="FooLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > showClass("FooLike") # displays foo and anotherfoo as > # known subclasses > > x1 <- new("foo") > is(x1, "foo") # TRUE > is(x1, "FooLike") # TRUE > is(x1, "anotherfoo") # FALSE > > x2 <- new("anotherfoo") > is(x2, "anotherfoo") # TRUE > is(x2, "FooLike") # TRUE > is(x2, "foo") # FALSE > > Everything works as expected. > > (2) Using a class union: define foo and anotherfoo first, then FooLike > as the union of foo and anotherfoo: > > setClass("foo", representation(stuff="ANY")) > setClass("anotherfoo", representation(stuff="ANY")) > setClassUnion("FooLike", c("foo", "anotherfoo")) > > showClass("FooLike") # displays foo and anotherfoo as > # known subclasses > > (3) Using a *unary* class union: define foo first, then FooLike as the > (unary) union of foo, then anotherfoo as a subclass of FooLike: > > setClass("foo", representation(stuff="ANY")) > setClassUnion("FooLike", "foo") > > showClass("FooLike") # displays foo as the only known subclass > > setClass("anotherfoo", > contains="FooLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > showClass("FooLike") # now displays foo and anotherfoo as > # known subclasses > > The 3 ways lead to the same hierarchy. However the 3rd way is > interesting because it allows one to define the FooLike virtual > class as the parent of an existing foo class that s/he doesn't > control. > > > Why not use setIs() for this?> setClass("ArrayLike") > setIs("array", "ArrayLike") Error in setIs("array", "ArrayLike") : class ?array? is sealed; new superclasses can not be defined, except by 'setClassUnion' How do you define a virtual class as the parent of an existing class with setIs?> Everything then behaves as expected. I > don't think it makes much sense to "contain" a class union.Why is that? A class union is just a virtual class with no slot that is the parent of the classes that are in the union. All the classes in the union contain their parent. What's interesting is that this union is actually open to new members: when I later define a new class that contains the class union, I'm just adding a new member to the union.> Rather, you > just want to establish the inheritance relationship.Isn't what I'm doing when I define a new class that contains the class union?> > For example, to define an ArrayLike class: > > setClassUnion("ArrayLike", "array") > showClass("ArrayLike") # displays array as a known subclass > > Note that ArrayLike is virtual with no slots (analog to a Java > Interface), which is what is expected. > > setClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", > contains="ArrayLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > showClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # shows 2 slots!! > > What is the .Data slot doing here? I would expect to see that slot > if MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass was extending array but this is not > the case here. > > a <- new("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") > > is(a, "MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # TRUE --> ok > is(a, "ArrayLike") # TRUE --> ok > is(a, "array") # FALSE --> ok > > But: > > is.array(a) # TRUE --> not ok! > > Is is.array() confused by the presence of the .Data slot? > > > It looks like the unary union somehow equates ArrayLike and arrayClearly the unary union makes ArrayLike a parent of array, as it should be. This can be confirmed by extends(): > extends("array", "ArrayLike") [1] TRUE > extends("ArrayLike", "array") [1] FALSE The results for is(a, "ArrayLike") (TRUE) and is(a, "array") (FALSE) on a MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass instance are consistent with this. So the little 3-class hierarchy I end up with in the above example is exactly how expected: ArrayLike ^ ^ | | array MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass What is not expected is that MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass has a .Data slot and that is.array(a) returns TRUE on a MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass object. H.> and > thus makes ArrayLike confer a dim attribute (and thus is.array(a) > returns TRUE). Since S4 objects cannot have attributes that are not > slots, it must do this via a data part, thus the .Data slot. > > I can fix it by defining an "is.array" method for > MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass objects: > > setMethod("is.array", "MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", > function(x) FALSE > ) > > However, it feels that I shouldn't have to do this. > > Is the presence of the .Data slot in MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass > objects an unintended feature? > > Thanks, > H. > > > sessionInfo() > R Under development (unstable) (2016-01-07 r69884) > Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit) > Running under: Ubuntu 14.04.4 LTS > > locale: > [1] LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C > [3] LC_TIME=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=en_US.UTF-8 > [5] LC_MONETARY=en_US.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES=en_US.UTF-8 > [7] LC_PAPER=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NAME=C > [9] LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C > [11] LC_MEASUREMENT=en_US.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C > > attached base packages: > [1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base > > -- > Herv? Pag?s > > Program in Computational Biology > Division of Public Health Sciences > Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 > P.O. Box 19024 > Seattle, WA 98109-1024 > > E-mail: hpages at fredhutch.org <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org> > Phone: (206) 667-5791 <tel:%28206%29%20667-5791> > Fax: (206) 667-1319 <tel:%28206%29%20667-1319> > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > >-- Herv? Pag?s Program in Computational Biology Division of Public Health Sciences Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 P.O. Box 19024 Seattle, WA 98109-1024 E-mail: hpages at fredhutch.org Phone: (206) 667-5791 Fax: (206) 667-1319
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> wrote:> On 03/18/2016 03:28 PM, Michael Lawrence wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org >> <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Short story >> ----------- >> >> setClassUnion("ArrayLike", "array") >> >> showClass("ArrayLike") # no slot >> >> setClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", >> contains="ArrayLike", >> representation(stuff="ANY") >> ) >> >> showClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # 2 slots!! >> >> That doesn't seem right. >> >> Long story >> ---------- >> >> S4 provides at least 3 ways to create a little class hierarchy >> like this: >> >> FooLike ............. virtual class with no slot >> ^ ^ >> | | >> foo anotherfoo ..... 2 concrete subclasses >> >> (1) The "standard" way: define FooLike first, then foo and anotherfoo >> as subclasses of FooLike: >> >> setClass("FooLike") >> >> setClass("foo", >> contains="FooLike", >> representation(stuff="ANY") >> ) >> >> setClass("anotherfoo", >> contains="FooLike", >> representation(stuff="ANY") >> ) >> >> showClass("FooLike") # displays foo and anotherfoo as >> # known subclasses >> >> x1 <- new("foo") >> is(x1, "foo") # TRUE >> is(x1, "FooLike") # TRUE >> is(x1, "anotherfoo") # FALSE >> >> x2 <- new("anotherfoo") >> is(x2, "anotherfoo") # TRUE >> is(x2, "FooLike") # TRUE >> is(x2, "foo") # FALSE >> >> Everything works as expected. >> >> (2) Using a class union: define foo and anotherfoo first, then FooLike >> as the union of foo and anotherfoo: >> >> setClass("foo", representation(stuff="ANY")) >> setClass("anotherfoo", representation(stuff="ANY")) >> setClassUnion("FooLike", c("foo", "anotherfoo")) >> >> showClass("FooLike") # displays foo and anotherfoo as >> # known subclasses >> >> (3) Using a *unary* class union: define foo first, then FooLike as the >> (unary) union of foo, then anotherfoo as a subclass of FooLike: >> >> setClass("foo", representation(stuff="ANY")) >> setClassUnion("FooLike", "foo") >> >> showClass("FooLike") # displays foo as the only known subclass >> >> setClass("anotherfoo", >> contains="FooLike", >> representation(stuff="ANY") >> ) >> >> showClass("FooLike") # now displays foo and anotherfoo as >> # known subclasses >> >> The 3 ways lead to the same hierarchy. However the 3rd way is >> interesting because it allows one to define the FooLike virtual >> class as the parent of an existing foo class that s/he doesn't >> control. >> >> >> Why not use setIs() for this? >> > > > setClass("ArrayLike") > > setIs("array", "ArrayLike") > Error in setIs("array", "ArrayLike") : > class ?array? is sealed; new superclasses can not be defined, except > by 'setClassUnion' > > How do you define a virtual class as the parent of an existing class > with setIs? > >You can only do that with setClassUnion(). But the new classes should use setIs() to inherit from the union. So it's: setClassUnion("ArrayLike", "array") setClass("MyArrayLike") setIs("MyArrayLike", "ArrayLike")> Everything then behaves as expected. I >> don't think it makes much sense to "contain" a class union. >> > > Why is that? A class union is just a virtual class with no slot > that is the parent of the classes that are in the union. All the > classes in the union contain their parent. What's interesting is that > this union is actually open to new members: when I later define a new > class that contains the class union, I'm just adding a new member to > the union. > > Rather, you >> just want to establish the inheritance relationship. >> > > Isn't what I'm doing when I define a new class that contains the > class union? >Containing does two things: establishes the is() relationship and adds slots to the class. These slots are comprised of the slots of the contained class, and as a special case the "array" class and other native types confer a data part that comes from the prototype of the class. The "array" class has a double vector with a dim attribute as its prototype. That is all well understood. What is surprising is that "ArrayLike" has the same prototype as "array". That happens via setIs(doComplete=TRUE), called by setClassUnion(). When a class gains its first non-virtual child, the parent assumes the prototype of its child. I'm not sure why, but the logic is very explicit and I've come to just accept it as a "feature". I ran into this some months ago when defining my own ArrayLike when working on a very similar package to the one you are developing ;)> >> For example, to define an ArrayLike class: >> >> setClassUnion("ArrayLike", "array") >> showClass("ArrayLike") # displays array as a known subclass >> >> Note that ArrayLike is virtual with no slots (analog to a Java >> Interface), which is what is expected. >> >> setClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", >> contains="ArrayLike", >> representation(stuff="ANY") >> ) >> >> showClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # shows 2 slots!! >> >> What is the .Data slot doing here? I would expect to see that slot >> if MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass was extending array but this is not >> the case here. >> >> a <- new("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") >> >> is(a, "MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # TRUE --> ok >> is(a, "ArrayLike") # TRUE --> ok >> is(a, "array") # FALSE --> ok >> >> But: >> >> is.array(a) # TRUE --> not ok! >> >> Is is.array() confused by the presence of the .Data slot? >> >> >> It looks like the unary union somehow equates ArrayLike and array >> > > Clearly the unary union makes ArrayLike a parent of array, as it should > be. This can be confirmed by extends(): > > > extends("array", "ArrayLike") > [1] TRUE > > extends("ArrayLike", "array") > [1] FALSE > > The results for is(a, "ArrayLike") (TRUE) and is(a, "array") (FALSE) > on a MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass instance are consistent with this. > > So the little 3-class hierarchy I end up with in the above example > is exactly how expected: > > ArrayLike > ^ ^ > | | > array MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass > > What is not expected is that MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass has a .Data > slot and that is.array(a) returns TRUE on a MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass > object. > > H. > > and >> thus makes ArrayLike confer a dim attribute (and thus is.array(a) >> returns TRUE). Since S4 objects cannot have attributes that are not >> slots, it must do this via a data part, thus the .Data slot. >> >> I can fix it by defining an "is.array" method for >> MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass objects: >> >> setMethod("is.array", "MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", >> function(x) FALSE >> ) >> >> However, it feels that I shouldn't have to do this. >> >> Is the presence of the .Data slot in MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass >> objects an unintended feature? >> >> Thanks, >> H. >> >> > sessionInfo() >> R Under development (unstable) (2016-01-07 r69884) >> Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit) >> Running under: Ubuntu 14.04.4 LTS >> >> locale: >> [1] LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C >> [3] LC_TIME=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=en_US.UTF-8 >> [5] LC_MONETARY=en_US.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES=en_US.UTF-8 >> [7] LC_PAPER=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NAME=C >> [9] LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C >> [11] LC_MEASUREMENT=en_US.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C >> >> attached base packages: >> [1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base >> >> -- >> Herv? Pag?s >> >> Program in Computational Biology >> Division of Public Health Sciences >> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center >> 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 >> P.O. Box 19024 >> Seattle, WA 98109-1024 >> >> E-mail: hpages at fredhutch.org <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org> >> Phone: (206) 667-5791 <tel:%28206%29%20667-5791> >> Fax: (206) 667-1319 <tel:%28206%29%20667-1319> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> >> >> > -- > Herv? Pag?s > > Program in Computational Biology > Division of Public Health Sciences > Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 > P.O. Box 19024 > Seattle, WA 98109-1024 > > E-mail: hpages at fredhutch.org > Phone: (206) 667-5791 > Fax: (206) 667-1319 > >[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
On 03/19/2016 01:22 AM, Michael Lawrence wrote:> > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org > <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org>> wrote: > > On 03/18/2016 03:28 PM, Michael Lawrence wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Herv? Pag?s > <hpages at fredhutch.org <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org> > <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org>>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Short story > ----------- > > setClassUnion("ArrayLike", "array") > > showClass("ArrayLike") # no slot > > setClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", > contains="ArrayLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > showClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # 2 slots!! > > That doesn't seem right. > > Long story > ---------- > > S4 provides at least 3 ways to create a little class hierarchy > like this: > > FooLike ............. virtual class with no slot > ^ ^ > | | > foo anotherfoo ..... 2 concrete subclasses > > (1) The "standard" way: define FooLike first, then foo and > anotherfoo > as subclasses of FooLike: > > setClass("FooLike") > > setClass("foo", > contains="FooLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > setClass("anotherfoo", > contains="FooLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > showClass("FooLike") # displays foo and anotherfoo as > # known subclasses > > x1 <- new("foo") > is(x1, "foo") # TRUE > is(x1, "FooLike") # TRUE > is(x1, "anotherfoo") # FALSE > > x2 <- new("anotherfoo") > is(x2, "anotherfoo") # TRUE > is(x2, "FooLike") # TRUE > is(x2, "foo") # FALSE > > Everything works as expected. > > (2) Using a class union: define foo and anotherfoo first, > then FooLike > as the union of foo and anotherfoo: > > setClass("foo", representation(stuff="ANY")) > setClass("anotherfoo", representation(stuff="ANY")) > setClassUnion("FooLike", c("foo", "anotherfoo")) > > showClass("FooLike") # displays foo and anotherfoo as > # known subclasses > > (3) Using a *unary* class union: define foo first, then > FooLike as the > (unary) union of foo, then anotherfoo as a subclass of FooLike: > > setClass("foo", representation(stuff="ANY")) > setClassUnion("FooLike", "foo") > > showClass("FooLike") # displays foo as the only known > subclass > > setClass("anotherfoo", > contains="FooLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > showClass("FooLike") # now displays foo and anotherfoo as > # known subclasses > > The 3 ways lead to the same hierarchy. However the 3rd way is > interesting because it allows one to define the FooLike virtual > class as the parent of an existing foo class that s/he doesn't > control. > > > Why not use setIs() for this? > > > > setClass("ArrayLike") > > setIs("array", "ArrayLike") > Error in setIs("array", "ArrayLike") : > class ?array? is sealed; new superclasses can not be defined, > except by 'setClassUnion' > > How do you define a virtual class as the parent of an existing class > with setIs? > > > You can only do that with setClassUnion(). But the new classes should > use setIs() to inherit from the union. So it's: > > setClassUnion("ArrayLike", "array") > setClass("MyArrayLike") > setIs("MyArrayLike", "ArrayLike") > > Everything then behaves as expected. I > don't think it makes much sense to "contain" a class union. > > > Why is that? A class union is just a virtual class with no slot > that is the parent of the classes that are in the union. All the > classes in the union contain their parent. What's interesting is that > this union is actually open to new members: when I later define a new > class that contains the class union, I'm just adding a new member to > the union. > > Rather, you > just want to establish the inheritance relationship. > > > Isn't what I'm doing when I define a new class that contains the > class union? > > > Containing does two things: establishes the is() relationship and adds > slots to the class.I understand that. But in that case, since a class union has no slots, one would expect that using setIs() is equivalent to containing.> These slots are comprised of the slots of the > contained class, and as a special case the "array" class and other > native types confer a data part that comes from the prototype of the > class. The "array" class has a double vector with a dim attribute as its > prototype. That is all well understood. What is surprising is that > "ArrayLike" has the same prototype as "array". That happens via > setIs(doComplete=TRUE), called by setClassUnion(). When a class gains > its first non-virtual child, the parent assumes the prototype of its > child. I'm not sure why, but the logic is very explicit and I've come > to just accept it as a "feature".Never noticed that. Thanks for clarifying. So with this "feature": - setClassUnion("A", c("B", "C")) is not the same as setClassUnion("A", c("C", "B")) - if 2 packages define concrete subclasses of a virtual class defined in a 3rd package, the prototype of the virtual class will depend on the order the packages are loaded - using setIs("MyArrayLike", "ArrayLike") is not equivalent to containing (even though ArrayLike has no slots) - containing adds an undesirable .Data slot - containing breaks is.array() but not is( , "array") Seems pretty harmful to me. Would be good to understand the rationale behind this feature. In particular it's not clear to me why a virtual class with no slot would need to have a prototype at all (i.e. other than NULL).> I ran into this some months ago when > defining my own ArrayLike when working on a very similar package to the > one you are developing ;)After giving it more thoughts I realized that I can do without the ArrayLike class. That will keep the class hierarchy in HDF5Array to the strict minimum. Thanks for the feedback, H.> > > > For example, to define an ArrayLike class: > > setClassUnion("ArrayLike", "array") > showClass("ArrayLike") # displays array as a known subclass > > Note that ArrayLike is virtual with no slots (analog to a Java > Interface), which is what is expected. > > setClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", > contains="ArrayLike", > representation(stuff="ANY") > ) > > showClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # shows 2 slots!! > > What is the .Data slot doing here? I would expect to see > that slot > if MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass was extending array but this > is not > the case here. > > a <- new("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") > > is(a, "MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # TRUE --> ok > is(a, "ArrayLike") # TRUE --> ok > is(a, "array") # FALSE --> ok > > But: > > is.array(a) # TRUE --> not ok! > > Is is.array() confused by the presence of the .Data slot? > > > It looks like the unary union somehow equates ArrayLike and array > > > Clearly the unary union makes ArrayLike a parent of array, as it should > be. This can be confirmed by extends(): > > > extends("array", "ArrayLike") > [1] TRUE > > extends("ArrayLike", "array") > [1] FALSE > > The results for is(a, "ArrayLike") (TRUE) and is(a, "array") (FALSE) > on a MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass instance are consistent with this. > > So the little 3-class hierarchy I end up with in the above example > is exactly how expected: > > ArrayLike > ^ ^ > | | > array MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass > > What is not expected is that MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass has a .Data > slot and that is.array(a) returns TRUE on a MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass > object. > > H. > > and > thus makes ArrayLike confer a dim attribute (and thus is.array(a) > returns TRUE). Since S4 objects cannot have attributes that are not > slots, it must do this via a data part, thus the .Data slot. > > I can fix it by defining an "is.array" method for > MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass objects: > > setMethod("is.array", "MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", > function(x) FALSE > ) > > However, it feels that I shouldn't have to do this. > > Is the presence of the .Data slot in > MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass > objects an unintended feature? > > Thanks, > H. > > > sessionInfo() > R Under development (unstable) (2016-01-07 r69884) > Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit) > Running under: Ubuntu 14.04.4 LTS > > locale: > [1] LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C > [3] LC_TIME=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=en_US.UTF-8 > [5] LC_MONETARY=en_US.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES=en_US.UTF-8 > [7] LC_PAPER=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NAME=C > [9] LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C > [11] LC_MEASUREMENT=en_US.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C > > attached base packages: > [1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets > methods base > > -- > Herv? Pag?s > > Program in Computational Biology > Division of Public Health Sciences > Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 > P.O. Box 19024 > Seattle, WA 98109-1024 > > E-mail: hpages at fredhutch.org <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org> > <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org>> > Phone: (206) 667-5791 <tel:%28206%29%20667-5791> > <tel:%28206%29%20667-5791> > Fax: (206) 667-1319 <tel:%28206%29%20667-1319> > <tel:%28206%29%20667-1319> > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> > <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> > mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > > > -- > Herv? Pag?s > > Program in Computational Biology > Division of Public Health Sciences > Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 > P.O. Box 19024 > Seattle, WA 98109-1024 > > E-mail: hpages at fredhutch.org <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org> > Phone: (206) 667-5791 <tel:%28206%29%20667-5791> > Fax: (206) 667-1319 <tel:%28206%29%20667-1319> > >-- Herv? Pag?s Program in Computational Biology Division of Public Health Sciences Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 P.O. Box 19024 Seattle, WA 98109-1024 E-mail: hpages at fredhutch.org Phone: (206) 667-5791 Fax: (206) 667-1319