[Biococoa-dev] Using an untyped class sequence
jtimmer at bellatlantic.net
Tue Jul 5 10:33:29 EDT 2005
>> Which to me is the responsibility of the app-developer, not of BioCocoa. And
>> even with a singly-typed sequence, we still have the symbolset to check for
>> and adjust the GUI accordingly.
Oh, I agree - App developer issue - that's why I tried to make clear it's a
> Nice discussion! But indeed the question which hasn't been answered by both
> pros and contras, can the symbolset provide the error checking and return
> value customisation to such a level that we don't need the typed sequences.
> Note that we could provide much of this in the BCSequence methods and I
> personally think it would be possible, which would give us one unified
> interface to BCSequence. What do you think? Charles did I now get it right,
> that you actually are thinking of only the typed versions? What's your
> viewpoint on this?
There's no question that we're going to have a sequence type maintained
somewhere - the question seems to be where. I have no doubt that, although
the code would be structured differently, fairly equivalent functionality
could be provided by either typed classes or by asking a sequence object
what type of sequence it contained. So, I¹m not arguing about either of
In my earlier email, though, I provided a list of the advantages of typed
sequence classes and some disadvantages of the alternative. Koen had
objected to typed sequence classes in the past because we had some code
duplications, but with that problem now fixed, I¹m not sure whether there
are any disadvantages to typed classes. I haven¹t seen an equivalent list
of advantages to typed classes. The only thing that¹s clear is that other
BioX projects have used a single sequence class, but we don¹t currently know
So, can anyone sell me on the advantages of a single class?
This mind intentionally left blank
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Biococoa-dev