cjm at fruitfly.org
Fri Jun 10 16:25:58 EDT 2005
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Chris Mungall wrote:
> 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.
Ah, of course, disconnected_ranges can just call $self->union(), and
provided the caller respects the convention of not calling static methods
on an interface, then everything should be fine..
> 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
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at portal.open-bio.org
More information about the Bioperl-l