Hi Jonna, Jonna Terkildsen wrote: > Dear Andre, > > I appreciate that a change such as this would not be useful for you in > terms of the way you set up your models. But I believe you have to > consider the fact that every person who creates models has their own way > of debugging or checking for errors. As such, this could (and would) be > a useful change for those (such as myself) who like to list all the "in" > connections to a component directly next to that component to be able to > quickly see that they have made all the appropriate connections. I > personally find this is a lot easier for debugging than having a big > clump of connections at the end of a model. I appreciate that this may > not conform to current "best practice", but it works for me. But I'm not > writing to debate the pros and cons of coding styles. It seems to me > that this change would be useful to some users (namely myself and some > others here at the Bioengineering Institute) and as it doesn't (in my > mind at least) change the meaning of the CellML, I can't see why it > should be an issue.
while I think I point out some issues in my previous emails, I'm certainly not trying to say that "my way is the best", merely pointing out that there are CellML users happy with the current standard. I think you'll also find that using CellML 1.1 a lot of these problems go away as you only ever have one, or at most a few, components per model so you can easily achieve a coding style like your current one without needing to change the specification. I'm similarly not really interested in a debate on best practices for coding CellML XML by hand, just putting forward my objection to making such a change to the specification. Andre. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
