[BioPython] Bio.Medline parser

[Michiel de Hoon]

If there are no further suggestions, I'll implement the .find() method as described below.

--Michiel.

--- On Sat, 8/2/08, Michiel de Hoon <mjldehoon at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Michiel de Hoon <mjldehoon at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [BioPython] Bio.Medline parser
> To: "Peter" <biopython at maubp.freeserve.co.uk>
> Cc: biopython at biopython.org
> Date: Saturday, August 2, 2008, 9:57 PM
> > The alias idea is nice but does mean there is more than
> one
> > way to access the data (not encouraged in python).  A
> related
> > suggestion is to support the properties
> record.entry_date, 
> > record.author etc (what ever the current parser does)
> as
> > alternatives to record["DA"],
> record["AU"], ... ?  This would
> > then be backwards compatible.  This could probably be
> done with
> > a private dictionary mapping keys ("DA") to
> property names 
> > ("entry_date").  When ever we add a new
> entry to the
> > dictionary, also see if it has a named property to
> define
> > too.
> > 
> Thinking it over, I think that having a key and an
> attribute mapping to the same value is not so clean.
> Alternatively we could add a .find(term) method to the
> Bio.Medline.Record class, which takes a term and returns the
> appropriate value. So record.find("author")
> returns record["AU"]. This gives a clear
> separation between the raw keys in the Medline file and the
> more descriptive names. Also, such a .find method can accept
> a wider variety of terms than an attribute name (e.g.,
> "Full Author", "full_author", etc. all
> return record["FAU"]).
> 
> --Michiel
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> BioPython mailing list  -  BioPython at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython