-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Writing/exporting raw data objects #259
Comments
Given the feedback on bioc-devel, I suggest we drop From a user's perspective, I think So my vote would go for 2. Quick question - what would be the difference in writing an |
Jup, let's drop
|
We could have setGeneric("writeMSData", function(object, file, ...) standardGeneric("writeMSData")) and then in setMethod("writeMSData",
c("list", ## list of spectra
"character", ## file name
"data.frame", ## header
...)
function(object, filenames, header) { ... }) and in setMethod("writeMSData",
c("MSnExp", ## list of spectra
"character", ## file name
...) {
function(object, files) {
header <- fData(object)
...
}) By the way, I would prefer |
OK, let's go for that - do you add the generic to |
Made a pull request in |
Merged. Will push to bioc asap (but I'm at a meeting whole day). |
Done |
- Require ProtGenerics 1.9.1 (defining the writeMSData generic). - Require most recent mzR (>= 2.11.11). - Change write,MSnExp to writeMSData,MSnExp (issue #259). - Add argument merge = FALSE to writeMSData,MSnExp to enable future merging of MS data into a single file.
This discusses naming the function in PR #257, also discussed here. Current suggestions are
write
- Jo's first choicewriteMSData
as a generic with methods inmzR
andMSnbase
export
- suggested on bioc-develPlease share you opinions/votes below.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: