[Bioperl-l] Bio::RangeI::union

Chris Mungall cjm at fruitfly.org
Fri Jun 10 15:53:07 EDT 2005

What about Bio::RangeI->disconnected_ranges(), which currently calls
Bio::RangeI->union()? It seems highly egregious for a decorated interface
to call an implementing class.

Personally I'd rather we gave up the pretense that RangeI is an interface,
and just admit it's a class like any other, and allow static method calls
like RangeI->union() (and avoiding forcing people to change code that
conforms perfectly to the documentation). I'm afraid This whole decorated
interface concept makes no sense whatsoever to me.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Aaron J. Mackey wrote:

> Yep (using whatever deprecation method [warn, throw, etc] we use
> elsewhere).  But I guess we'd need to check that Bio::RangeI itself
> doesn't ever do this.
> -Aaron
> On Jun 10, 2005, at 12:36 PM, Chris Mungall wrote:
> > I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing when you say
> > "deprecating the
> > Bio::RangeI->union() construct" - how would this work? Would it
> > just throw
> > a warning if $self eq "Bio::RangeI"?
> --
> Aaron J. Mackey, Ph.D.
> Project Manager, ApiDB Bioinformatics Resource Center
> Penn Genomics Institute, University of Pennsylvania
> email:  amackey at pcbi.upenn.edu
> office: 215-898-1205
> fax:    215-746-6697
> postal: Penn Genomics Institute
>          Goddard Labs 212
>          415 S. University Avenue
>          Philadelphia, PA  19104-6017

-- Chris

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list