[seqfan] Re: easy

[franktaw at netscape.net]

Let me add that it is much, much easier to remove the keyword than to 
figure out where all it should be applied. Someone with access to the 
database should be able to do a global search and replace, and be done 
in at most a matter of minutes. Examining all sequences that aren't 
already "easy" nor marked "hard" would take man-years.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: franktaw <franktaw at netscape.net>

Why? Specifically, what is your response to my point (2)?

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Alonso Del Arte <alonso.delarte at gmail.com>

While I agree with your point 1), I disagree with removing the keyword.
I
think that what needs to be done is to gradually identify those
sequences
that ought to have it and add it as we encounter those sequences.

Al

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM, <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:

> While we're on the subject, I would like to suggest removing the
"easy"
> keyword.
>
> 1) Current application is very hit or miss. There are tens of
thousands of
> easy sequences that do not have the keyword.
> 2) I don't know what it's good for. Why would anyone every search for
> "easy" (or not "easy")? Leaving aside the current searches for
anomalies
> like "easy" and "more".
> 3) Showing that a sequence is easy is better done with a comment,
formula,
> or program, so that one can see why it is easy.
>
> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
>
> ______________________________**_________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>



--
Alonso del Arte
Author at
SmashWords.com<https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/AlonsoDelarte>
Musician at ReverbNation.com <http://www.reverbnation.com/alonsodelarte>

_______________________________________________

Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/



_______________________________________________

Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/