[Bioperl-l] For CVS developers - throw_not_implemented

[Stephen Gordon Lenk]

Isn't it fairly standard in OO schemes/languages to have an exception thrown if a method 
can't be found at the 
end of a search up the class hierarchy? I recall being very mad at Smalltalk because "method 
not found" kept 
biting me. C++ has pure virtual base classes that do not allow objects to be instantiated 
directly; they are 
meant to be inherited and then implemented. 

Perl 6 was mentioned a bit back. Is this issue addressed there? Should it be? Do the Bioperl 
people feed their 
needs into Perl 6 so that all the code effort to make Bio::Root is handled for them in the next 
effort by Perl 6 
itself. Make the Perl 6 people solve these issues with your input, then you will not have to 
deal with 
implementing it yourselves. I'll just bet that you are not the only potential users of Perl 6 who 
will have to solve 
these issues eventually.


----- Original Message -----
From: Hilmar Lapp <hlapp at gmx.net>
Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 5:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] For CVS developers - throw_not_implemented

> 
> On May 31, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Chris Fields wrote:
> 
> > What about modules that have 'throw_not_implemented' statements  
> > present?
> 
> Those are often if not always legitimate - the problem are those 
> that  
> don't have them but fail to override an inherited interface or  
> abstract method.
> 
> If something is not implemented what is the better way to express  
> this other than throwing an exception? (and if it's not an 
> interface  
> or abstract base class, saying so in the documentation)
> 
> 	-hilmar
> 
> -- 
> 
=========================================================
==
> : Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :
> 
=========================================================
==
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>