[Bioperl-l] Help with Bio::SeqIO
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Mon Nov 5 17:12:23 EST 2007
On Nov 5, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Chris Fields wrote:
>> If we go through with the changes to spliced_seq(), should it be
>> implemented for inclusion in v1.6 or wait until v1.7?
> I would say they should be implemented ASAP because they 1) should
> not change behavior for those for which the current default
> behavior was already broken (and who therefore pass in --no_sort),
> and 2) fix the behavior for those who erroneously assumed that the
> code was going to do the right thing by default.
> I.e., it sounds mostly like a bugfix to me. Am I overlooking
Okay; I'll try to get this in soon.
More information about the Bioperl-l