>> There's two other reasons I favor this structure: What you tend to
>> do with
>> DNA sequences and what you tend to do with protein sequences are
>> typically
>> very different - I don't see why they all the differences should be
>> forced
>> to reside in the same class.
>
> They shouldn't be, although I fail to understand why getting a
> subsequence is different for a DNA or protein. But that might be
> because of my limited knowledge of the biology.
In this particular example I don't see a difference either. In the end
I guess one can come up with many examples where things are similar for
both and where things are different. The feeling I have is that there
are more of the latter...
>
> The same approach is used in other bio frameworks, such as biopython,
> bioperl, and biojava, so it's been proven useful (if that means
> anything). Anyway the popular vote seems to be winning, so I will rest
> my case.
2:1 isn't particular a strong vote. Reminds me to the American
elections... ;-)
Cheers,
Alex
*********************************************************
** Alexander Griekspoor **
*********************************************************
The Netherlands Cancer Institute
Department of Tumorbiology (H4)
Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam
Tel: + 31 20 - 512 2023
Fax: + 31 20 - 512 2029
AIM: mekentosj at mac.com
E-mail: a.griekspoor at nki.nl
Web: http://www.mekentosj.com
Claiming that the Macintosh is inferior to Windows
because most people use Windows, is like saying
that all other restaurants serve food that is
inferior to McDonalds
*********************************************************