University of Utah
Re: No defaults in SBML L3
21 Sep '09 10:39
> If a developer wants as minimal impact on his code as possible they
> free to keep coding towards L2 for which libsml provides well defined
> default values. For L3 support one can use the excellent libsbml
> conversion facilities to read and write.
I'd really like to stop hearing this argument being made. I don't
think we should be advocating continued use of L2 but rather
developing an L3 that people are happy with. If the answer to all
suggestions is if you don't like it, use L2, then L3 will never gain
acceptance. In which case, why is L3 being developed? What good is a
clean language if no one uses it?
A better approach, in my opinion, is to come up with ways that people
can use L3 for their needs. Case in point is my suggestion of adding
a readSBML that provides defaults to required entries. Or, a
readAndConvert function which would also need to provide defaults
since L2 had defaults. I really think it is problematic to allow SBML
files to be read that have missing, unspecified, required entries.
To manage your libsbml-development list subscription, visit
For a web interface to the libsbml-development mailing list, visit
For questions or feedback about the libsbml-development list,
Powered by FUDforum. (Copyright Advanced Internet Designs Inc.)