[Bioperl-l] Bio::*Taxonomy* changes

[Hilmar Lapp]

I don't think the top-level or sub-directory matters at all and I  
don't want anybody to get used to the notion that that may imply  
anything (except possibly better thought-out structure for the sub- 
directory level). For instance RichSeq is what all rich annotation  
sequence format parsers return, yet it is in a sub-directory.

I don't any real objection to Bio::Taxon though if that's what you'd  
like to name it - although, what will happen to the Bio::Taxonomy  
hierarchy then? Phased out?

	-hilmar


On Jul 27, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:

> Hilmar Lapp wrote:
>>
>> So overall I think you should just go ahead.
>
> One last suggestion for discussion:
>
> It may be appropriate is to rename Bio::Taxonomy::Node to clarify that
> Node has no particular reliance on or association with  
> Bio::Taxonomy or
> the other modules in Bio/Taxonomy/.
>
> How about calling it Bio::Taxon?
>
> It is more obvious what to expect from something called 'Bio::Taxon'
> when you know that it is the new 'Bio::Species': like Bio::Species but
> for any taxon. It also makes the class 'top-level' which I think most
> people are happier using; seems like things in sub-directories are  
> more
> for advanced users.
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>

-- 
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :
===========================================================