i'm all for that. The original code was developed by a Google Summer of Code student, who we haven't heard much from since. :(
cheers, Richard On 13 Nov 2009, at 12:25, Tiago Antão wrote: > Hi, > >> My suggestion: for somebody else to verify my findings. I might be >> doing something stupidly wrong. Maybe things are correct. Just a >> simple tree like (1,2,3) (as long as it is not binary) - should expose >> the problem. >> > > Has nobody answered here is my take: > > 1. The error reported probably exists > 2. Most probably nobody is using the parser (as it only supports binary > trees). > > In this light, changing the API should not be a problem at all. > > I would not mind correcting the problem (I have already corrected the > previous 2 ones in my local version). > I would suggest removing the call to the unweighted graph. Reasons: > 1. A weighted version is enough. If branch lengths are not specified, > then weights could be set to 0. There there would not be a decrease in > functionality. > 2. Severely reducing the size of the code is important. Clearly the > code is not much maintained (and I am not offering to maintain it in > the long run, just putting it in good shape) and not much used. > Therefore a smaller, more easy to manage code base makes even more > sense. > > If you accept a solution along these lines. I would correct all the > bugs and also include test code (which is also missing). > > > > -- > "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of > moral crisis, maintain a neutrality." - Dante -- Richard Holland, BSc MBCS Operations and Delivery Director, Eagle Genomics Ltd T: +44 (0)1223 654481 ext 3 | E: [email protected] http://www.eaglegenomics.com/ _______________________________________________ Biojava-l mailing list - [email protected] http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
