On May 31, 2009, at 6:50 AM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
> > I can't think of a reason why blastx and tblastx shouldn't be able to > take in query databases as well as sequences, but that doesn't mean > there isn't one ;). Any comments? Hi Titus, I think this makes particular sense in light of your proposal for changing the behavior of BlastxMapping, to use "canonical" 6-frame translation annotations rather than the original way I did it (creating a new TranslationAnnotation for each hit, and returning a separate NLMSASlice for each hit). Under your proposal, it seemed we would use the same set of canonical TranslationAnnotations for all hits to a given sequence, and thus could save them all to the same NLMSA. That would make the BlastxMapping interface the same as the BlastMapping interface, whose __call__() returns a NLMSA object. Shall we go ahead and make that change? Do you want to discuss details of the implementation? And who should do it? Cheers, -- Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pygr-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to pygr-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pygr-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pygr-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
