[Bioperl-l] For CVS developers -potentialpitfallwith"returnundef"

Chris Fields cjfields at uiuc.edu
Thu Jun 1 13:46:45 EDT 2006


> > Again, didn't do that.
> I'm very sorry that I allowed the ambiguity, but my comments were
> certainly not directed at your recent changes to Bio::Restriction::IO.
> In fact, I put in the above * comment to exclude your changes from my
> discussion; you changed the docs because the code never did what they
> said they did (the docs were bad). That's fine (good!). My comments were
> a general point, slightly directed at the idea of changing all the
> return undef;s - changing the code so that it no longer matches the docs
> of a previously working method. That's what I think is bad. Though in
> this particular case it shouldn't make any difference at all.

Agreed.  In any case, if tests have been properly set up then they should
catch problems.  This is, of course, if they are properly set up.  


> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list