On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:17:26AM -0800, Reece Hart wrote: > Tim- > > For some reason I thought Bio:: was a registered namespace and that this implied > a closed namespace > (i.e., anything in CPAN's Bio:: tree had to come from bioperl's developers). I > see now that both are > incorrect. > > I know some of these people and appreciate their work very much; I was concerned > about the etiquette of > polluting their namespace, but I also don't want to restrict myself to the > guidelines. > Upon your correction and closer inspection of the modules list, I see that Bio:: > is not theirs, and that > other Bio:: contributors have not followed the bioperl style guidelines. > > So, can you please register Bio::Prospect instead? Or do I need to resubmit?
Is Bio::Prospect the best name? Perhaps Bio::<something>::Prospect would be better? Anyway, ponder that and then resubmit using the web form. Thanks. > But couldn't you work within their guidelines anyway? > > The bioperl guidelines proscribe things like hash-key formats in parameters > (-key=> with leading > hyphens), an exception handling mechanism the I think is inferior to the one I > use, and a mandate for > pure virtual interfaces to all objects, and more. I don't care to have the debate > about which style is > better or worse. Furthermore, the bioperl developers themselves recognize the > need to redesign and are > talking about 2.0 goals, so I'm not inclined to write to a sunsetting framework. Fair enough. Tim.
