Re: [Biopython] Deprecate Bio.GenBank.Record based GenBank parser?
Peter Cock <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.bio.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKVJ-_6SnP0_++TgRPC7c5RxvZD_pJTa8ABp4q6xpnd-WaqbAw@mail.gmail.com> |
Also logged on GitHub, with a couple of typos fixed: https://github.com/biopython/biopython/issues/1817 Peter On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:30 PM Peter Cock <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Am I right in thinking almost everyone working with GenBank > or EMBL files in Biopython does so via Bio.Seq these days? > > Underneath, this calls the scanner/consumer parser defined in > Bio.GenBank, where the scanner code breaks up the file into > logical bits which are passed to a consumer which turns them > into a Biopython data structure. For Bio.SeqIO, we build up a > SeqRecord object, but there is an alternative consumer which > builds up Bio.GenBank.Record objects instead. > > If you the Bio.GenBank.read(...) or Bio.GenBank.parse(...) > functions you will get Bio.GenBank.Record objects which are > a quite direct representation of the underlying data structure, > and str(...) will give you a GenBank formatted string. Here > for example, the feature locations are left as plain strings. > > Does anyone use the Bio.GenBank.Record based GenBank > parser? Could we deprecate it (in favour of only using the > GenBank parser via Bio.SeqIO)? This would mean in a few > releases time, we could remove the old record class and > potentially then simplify the GenBank/EMBL parsing. > > Peter _______________________________________________ Biopython mailing list - [email protected] http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython