cjfields at uiuc.edu
Tue Nov 7 10:58:48 EST 2006
On Nov 7, 2006, at 3:15 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
> Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
>> I agree, I was going to update the tests later this morning :-P Any
>> thoughts about version() or should I just leave it be for now?
> If its no trouble, go ahead with a version() method. Its nice to
> have in
> any case. I'd suggest your latter option of 'there be a function that
> does a compare internally so it can be accessed something like:
> print "we have met the min version requirement\n" if
> In fact, it ought to work with '34t26b3' as well (I guess the method
> would try what it was given, and on failure, try again with the last 2
> characters removed, then try both cases again with a decimal added if
> there wasn't one).
Is it possible to have the interface base class contain an abstract
program_version() (or similar) method? One that could be implemented
to just grab the current version of the program? I was thinking
about something like this for the RNA-based wrappers I want to add
but it seems to be something that most Run modules would benefit
from. Just haven't had time to look into it with much detail.
Almost wonder if it would be easier to have all bioperl-run modules
have a Run-specific Root object for common methods, regardless of the
other interfaces used. Maybe something inheriting Bio::Root::Root...
Lab of Dr. Robert Switzer
Dept of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
More information about the Bioperl-l