Closed matsen closed 12 years ago
There's already an --unweighted
flag on splitify which deals with placements. Should this use a different flag name?
If I was going to start over, I would replace "unweighted" with "point" and "weighted" with "spread" everywhere in the code. Then --unweighted would take the meaning described here.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Aaron Gallagher reply@reply.github.com wrote:
There's already an
--unweighted
flag on splitify which deals with placements. Should this use a different flag name?Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/matsen/pplacer/issues/146#issuecomment-2611664
Frederick "Erick" Matsen, Assistant Member Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center http://matsen.fhcrc.org/
Note that the above commit fixes this naming conflict.
Add an
--unweighted
flag to the splitify cmdobject, such that instead of using the usualGuppy_splitify.splitify
command, it uses an "unweighted_splitify` command.That command returns +1 if
x -. (1. -. x)
is strictly positive, -1 if negative, and 0 otherwise.Note that we may later want to have a user-specifiable cutoff such that this function returns zero if the absolute value of
x -. (1. -. x)
is less than some cutoff.Everything else with eg PCA would then continue as before but with this vector.