On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Kasper Daniel Hansen <
kasperdanielhansen@gmail.com> wrote:

> We clearly need c() for GRanges since I believe there is tons of code
> for that.  My guess is that combine() is much less used.
>
> I don't know what combine does for GRanges, but in general I would not
>

AFAICT it doesn't exist.  Not clear why I looked for it, I guess I assumed
that the objects were too complicated
for a c() method to exist.


> expect c() and combine() to necessarily do the same thing.  c() I
> think of as putting the objects after each other and I think of
> combine as putting the objects next to each other (essentially combine
> two different sets of samples - which of course does not make a whole
> lot of sense for GRanges).  I also think that too few people know of
> combine(), but I always define methods for it in my packages, allowing
> me to put objects next to each other.
>
> Specifically, for GRanges, I would not expect that the two GRanges I
> combine would contain the same elementMetadata and I would expect that
> combine would fill them up with NAs as appropriate.  Not so sure
> whether that is useful.
>
>
So far I am happy with the behavior of c() for my problem.

Kasper
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Vincent Carey
> <stvjc@channing.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > It took a moment to recall that c() could be used for combination of
> > GRanges instances.  Do we need both?
> >
> >        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

