pestfind: name collision

[Catherine Letondal]

"David Mathog" wrote:

Thanks David for this detailed answer!

> [...]
> I have not analyzed the EMBOSS code extensively but clearly
> it differs in some ways from the original PESTFIND since the
> results are not quite the same.  A quick glance showed that
> the original had a weight term and two of its
> values were 186 and 163, this bit of code seems to be
> missing from the EMBOSS PESTFIND.  Perhaps these are coded in
> there in some other manner, for instance, the values are derived
> from some included table and differ slightly from the integer
> values?
> [...]
> 
> The bottom line though is that:
> 
> 1.  The EMBOSS version seems to be doing a slightly different
> calculation than the original PESTFIND. The results are
> very close, they may even be "better" by some criteria, but
> they are not the same.
> 
> 2.  There was already an earlier program with that name.
> Usually with EMBOSS a port of "program" into an EMBOSS version
> resulted in "eprogram" in order to avoid exactly this
> sort of confusion.
> 
> So the EMBOSS version should be renamed "epestfind".  

Do people from EMBOSS agree with this?

--
Catherine Letondal -- Pasteur Institute Computing Center