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 _______________________________________________ Biojava-l mailing list - [email protected] http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
