Closed TGuillerme closed 11 months ago
Hi Thomas,
What you suggest is actually to make makeNodeLabel()
a generic function: this is a great idea!
I suggest to do this explicitly, so methods for other classes could be added later (if needed in their time). This would imply that your proposed addition would be a separate function (i.e., makeNodeLabel.multiPhylo()
) and the current makeNodeLabel()
would become makeNodeLabel.phylo()
.
For the tests, there is a (relatively) new package apeTests that compiles them (they are too heavy to run on CRAN).
What do you think? Cheers, Emmanuel
Hi Emmanuel,
Yes good idea! I'll work on that when I'll have time and update this pull request accordingly.
Cheers, Thomas
Yes good idea! I'll work on that when I'll have time and update this pull request accordingly.
Don't worry for this. I'll take your code and adjust the other files (several files need to be modified, inc. NAMESPACE, which I can do easily from here). Cheers, E.
Nice thanks! I think one time it could be good to generalise this .phylo
.multiPhylo
class handling. There's nothing urgent or very important but it seems easy to lapply
most standard .phylo
functions in the same way as done for this example (either through self referencing or properly through declaring the two class functions).
Done. The test has been added to apeTests.
Dear
ape
team,Here's a quick and easy self call for
makeNodeLabel
to handle thephy
argument as a"multiPhylo"
with a mini test below if it's of interest (feel free to reject if not interested!).Cheers, Thomas