[Phylobase-devl] where are we??

Hilmar Lapp hlapp at duke.edu
Thu Jan 1 19:15:08 CET 2009

On Dec 30, 2008, at 10:27 PM, Peter Cowan wrote:

> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Marguerite Butler wrote:
>> [...]
>> On Dec 30, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Ben Bolker wrote:
>> [...]
> [...]
> My attitude is that users will interact with the package through
> accessors.  We can write accessors to get the data out in anyway users
> want.  I see that as a key advantage of the package

I would fully agree with that.

> [...]
> However, I see phylobase as intended for more than just comparative
> methods, rather for any R programming involving phylogenetic trees.
> For that reason, I think it's worth the effort to support unrooted
> trees.

Fully agree with this viewpoint, too. There are more uses of R in  
phylogenetic analysis than comparative methods, and it'd be really  
nice if phylobase could provide a useful basis for those too.

As for deferring or voting, I don't think I should (be entitled to)  
vote here. So I'm just throwing in my $0.02 from the sidelines.  
Generally speaking, don't be afraid to make decisions even if there  
isn't clear consensus. Making the "wrong" decision, if it turns out  
that way later when it needs to be revised, can still (at least  
eventually) make the code better than making no decision.

: Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :

More information about the Phylobase-devl mailing list