[Biococoa-dev] Compilation warnings with tools
Koen van der Drift
kvddrift at earthlink.net
Tue Feb 8 19:51:17 EST 2005
On Feb 8, 2005, at 10:55 AM, John Timmer wrote:
>>>>> ...<snip>... An alternative is to use the BCAbstractSequence type
>>>>> and have
>>>>> only one method....
>>>> Or have one weak typed method as I suggested in a previous post,
>>>> and test
>>>> the type in that method. Then either return an empty or useful
>>> So, you mean 'BCAbstractSequence', right?
>>> I am completely OK with that! (I just wanted to make sure that
>>> whatever we
>>> choose will please everybody).
>> Sorry, have to chime in here - I'm not! I thought the idea here was
>> the convenience methods, which would be present only in classes that
>> actually should use that method, would be strictly typed. That way,
>> as uptight as I am can be using strict classes and have access to
>> with strict signatures in them.
As long as the use of strong typing remains in the convenience method,
that that sounds fine to me too. What I mean is, that the use of strong
tying should remain hidden from the user - he should only have to deal
> Just an aside here - I'm assuming that since we aren't getting rid of
> subclasses, then it's probably worth my putting in a
> BCSequenceNucleotide to
> hold a bunch of the convenience methods that will be common to the DNA
> RNA classes?
> I should also explicitly state that, as I want the convenience
> methods, I'll
> put them in. One thing that would help here is if the tools headers
> well commented - last I looked, some of them were and some weren't.
> may have changed, but I need to run Tiger for a while to get a project
> moving, and I don't want to risk incompatibilities by accessing CVS
> that environment.
I guess that would be my bad. Which classes in particular are you
More information about the Biococoa-dev