Update ECCODE pattern to allow optional dashes #1396
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about we wait until the Bioregistry workshop at Biocuration 2025 to have a more productive in-person discussion, and try and address the remaining open questions from that thread before making any changes?
We can also try and develop materials to help guide future similar high impact and difficult discussions - I added an initial proposal in #1397
|
#681 has been open for more than 2 years, with 7 people other than @cthoyt and myself weighing in. I can't see a single comment from the community that is against allowing dashes, all comments are either supportive (many like @cmungall actively asking for this on many forums) or neutral. So why prolong the discussion? This is a community-driven project and the stance of the community is very clear here. |
These decoys are for if there are too few dashes or too many dashes, when being used
This PR aims to resolve the longstanding discussion at #681 by optionally allowing dashes in EC codes. Since my summary in #681 (comment) which has gotten a few endorsements there has not been an opposing argument from the community so I think this is the best path forward.