[Phylobase-devl] Planning the next release of phylobase
jombart at biomserv.univ-lyon1.fr
Sat Feb 23 13:06:54 CET 2008
Hilmar Lapp wrote:
>On Feb 22, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Ben Bolker wrote:
>> Another random question/opinion poll: what do people think about
>>the names of the tree-walking functions? should it be
>>getAncestors, getDescendants? Sons, Daughters? Leaves, branches?
>Note that historically accessors in R aren't called 'getWhatever()',
>but just 'whatever()'. Though feel free to set me straight on that,
>maybe this trend has been changing more recently as more people adopt
>I.e., you simply have ancestors(), descendants(), etc.
>Maybe it's also worth looking at some of the clustering packages and
>see what they use - a hierarchical clustering traversal isn't that
>different from traversing a tree in many respects.
I would vote for the shortest non-ambiguous accessor, i.e. I would
prefer stuff() over getStuff().
I guess the methods package used getStuff because stuff was used. For
instance, "methods" is a funtion, so getMethods was a natural (second?)
More information about the Phylobase-devl