[Biococoa-dev] Compilation warnings with tools

[Charles PARNOT]

(sorry, Koen, for the duplicate email)

At 10:52 PM -0500 2/7/05, Koen van der Drift wrote:
>On Feb 7, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Charles PARNOT 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 for the type in that method. Then either return an empty or useful array.

So, you mean 'BCAbstractSequence', right?
I am completely OK with that! (I just wanted to make sure that whatever we choose will please everybody).

>>I completely agree that there should only be one approach, so no tool should be private. I was foolish to imagine the other possibility... Now, what do you think of this other 'rule': to NOT have a convenience method both in the tool (+translateSequence:usingGeneticCode:) AND in the BCSequence (-translatedSequenceUsingGeneticCode:), but only in the BCSequence? I am not completely sure about all this and we may have to see how it works out in the long term...
>That seems like a reasonable 'rule'. I don't see any problems when the convenience method is only in BCSequence.

I forgot to mention the reason I mentioned such 'rule' is to avoid having 2 convenience methods in the tool, one for argument BCSequence and one for argument BCSequenceDNA. But if we just go with BCAbstractSequence, then it does not matter so much.

Anyway, let's just use BCAbstractSequence for now, like you say, and we could always come back to it in the future if we think it is a limitation. Sorry, I have been making too much of a big deal out of that non-issue;-)

charles

-- 
Help science go fast forward:
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~cparnot/xgrid-stanford/

Charles Parnot
charles.parnot at stanford.edu

Room  B157 in Beckman Center
279, Campus Drive
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305 (USA)

Tel +1 650 725 7754
Fax +1 650 725 8021