[Bioperl-l] Bio::SeqFeatureI issues

[Hilmar Lapp]

Done. -hilmar

On Friday, September 27, 2002, at 01:46 AM, Ewan Birney wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
>
>>>> objections, or has anyone thoughts why this may be a bad idea?
>>>>
>>>
>>> attach_seq() i think is about object creation/modification, and so is
>>> implementation specific. Do you think it has to be in the interface?
>>
>> It's not object creation really - rather about associating the feature
>> with another object. Having this on the interface underscores that in
>> general features will live in association with sequences, and here is
>> your method to express where it lives. I.e., implementors are 
>> encouraged
>> to enable this association.
>>
>> I think this bias is OK because it reflects 75% or more of use cases.
>> Associating a sequence is still optional, so you don't have to 
>> call the
>> method, and the implementor may choose not do anything useful when
>> taking the call, and the SeqFeatureI doc can clearly state this. 
>> But I'd
>> rather save $feat->can('attach_seq') a million times than not 
>> burdening
>> an implementor with providing an empty implementation.
>
> I buy this. Go for it.
>
>
>>
>> 	-hilmar
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Ewan Birney. Mobile: +44 (0)7970 151230, Work: +44 1223 494420
> <birney@ebi.ac.uk>.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hilmar Lapp                            email: lapp at gnf.org
GNF, San Diego, Ca. 92121              phone: +1-858-812-1757
-------------------------------------------------------------