[Bioperl-l] version() vs seq_version()

[Chris Fields]

I think, as long as this is clarified for the sake of documentation that would suffice.  I'm hazarding a guess that Bio::Seq::version() would be the seq-specific one, whereas Bio::Seq::RichSeq::seq_version() is the seq record (e.g. database entry specific) one.  

chris

On Jun 26, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> Versioning of a sequence database entry and of the sequence itself need not be the same thing.
> 
> Though I guess one can argue that in practice incrementing the version of a sequence would invariably also increment the version of the database entry. However, I'm not sure the reverse can necessarily be taken for granted.
> 
> 	-hilmar
> 
> On Jun 25, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Chris Fields wrote:
> 
>> Looking at bug 3095:
>> 
>> http://bugzilla.open-bio.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3095
>> 
>> As indicated there seems to be some redundancy between Bio::Seq::version() and Bio::Seq::RichSeq::seq_version().  Several formats (asciitree, genbank, embl, bsml, etc) all call seq_version(), whereas others use version() if at all.  My guess is the SV line from EMBL, but shouldn't using version() handle this?
>> 
>> Just as an experiment, I actually got seq_version to delegate to version() and all tests passed, so maybe this should just delegate or alias?
>> 
>> chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
>> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> 
> -- 
> ===========================================================
> : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at drycafe dot net :
> ===========================================================
> 
> 
> 
>