Hi Yingjie
Mike's solution seems the best thing you can do.
It basically means that instead of using jmolButton() you use your
own input type=button with jmolScript(). That way you have more
control --or easier at least.
You could probably still use jmolButton() giving it the ID parameter
and
On 12/01/2010 05:56 AM, Yingjie Lin wrote:
Dear Jmol Users,
I would like to be able to count the number of times a jmolbutton has been
clicked by a user, and then
to make this button do three different things upon the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
clicks.
To be more specific, I would like to have
Bob,
I'm still confused on the use of backslash with find. Here's the scenario:
sm2 is defined in a jmolScript:
var sm2 = ' + smileJs1 + ';
where smilesJs1 is JavaScript string defined as C(=C\\C)/C
I want to do a:
{*}.find('SMILES',sm2)
Should my JmolScript string construction be as above
Yes, quite a pain. You'll need in that case:
JavaScript C(=C\\C)/C gets translated to
C(=\C)/C
which is OK for JavaScript but will be translated again by Jmol to
backslash-C. So you want C:
var jsX = C(=CC)/C
First escape becomes:
C(=\\C)/C
which is then properly translated
Bob,
Thanks. That's what I thought, but because of my uncertainty on this
issue, I was having problems interpreting some find results. That
statement may seem strange, but I have it in my head that the following
logic is correct:
{*}.find(smiles,SOMESMILES) will evaluate true if SOMESMILES
Dear Jmol Users,
Is there a way for Jmol to know what color a SELECTION is, so that the same
color could be assigned some other SELECTIONs ?
Something like
getColor Selection_A color_A;
color (Selection_B) color_A;
Thank you.
- Yingjie
- Yingjie
{whatever}.color = {selected}.color
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Yingjie Lin yingjie@mssm.edu wrote:
Dear Jmol Users,
Is there a way for Jmol to know what color a SELECTION is, so that the same
color could be assigned some other SELECTIONs ?
Something like
getColor Selection_A
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Otis Rothenberger osrot...@chemagic.comwrote:
Bob,
Thanks. That's what I thought, but because of my uncertainty on this
issue, I was having problems interpreting some find results. That statement
may seem strange, but I have it in my head that the following
Bob,
Thanks again. Your comments that I'm leaving in this response are a
good FIND primer for me to keep handy.
Otis
Otis Rothenberger
chemagic.com
On 12/2/2010 12:51 AM, Robert Hanson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Otis Rothenberger
osrot...@chemagic.com
9 matches
Mail list logo
