Rename DNANucleotide to DNA?

[bicycle1885]

Just a random thought, but I think renaming DNANucleotide to DNA and RNANucleotide to RNA is a good idea because:

• DNA is shorter than DNANucleotide.
• The number of articles that contain "dna nucleotide" in its title or abstract is only 495 in PubMed but "dna" hits 885,020 articles.
• DNA is more consistent with other types since we use DNASequence and DNAKmer for sequences.

In addition, renaming Nucleotide to NucleicAcid would be consistent because we have the AminoAcid type.

Current:

abstract Nucleotide
bitstype 8 DNANucleotide <: Nucleotide
bitstype 8 RNANucleotide <: Nucleotide

Proposed:

abstract NucleicAcid
bitstype 8 DNA <: NucleicAcid
bitstype 8 RNA <: NucleicAcid

[TransGirlCodes]

I think this is a great name change, and makes it consistent!

…

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 at 14:18, Kenta Sato (佐藤 建太) ***@***.***> wrote: Just a random thought, but I think renaming DNANucleotide to DNA and RNANucleotide to RNA is a good idea because: - DNA is shorter than DNANucleotide. - The number of articles that contain "dna nucleotide" in its title or abstract is only 495 in PubMed <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22dna%20nucleotide%22%5BTitle%5D> but "dna" hits 885,020 articles <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22DNA%22%5BTitle%5D>. - DNA is more consistent with other types since we use DNASequence and DNAKmer for sequences. In addition, renaming Nucleotide to NucleicAcid would be consistent because we have the AminoAcid type. Current: abstract Nucleotide bitstype 8 DNANucleotide <: Nucleotide bitstype 8 RNANucleotide <: Nucleotide Proposed: abstract NucleicAcid bitstype 8 DNA <: NucleicAcid bitstype 8 RNA <: NucleicAcid — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#391>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADPejasZqMHS4Jl3J7I7-puUOuse6uS1ks5rbcM5gaJpZM4L-L8q> .