> As a reminder, there's an infinite number of structures that SMILES can't > handle. (Endohedral fullerenes and catenanes, to name two.)
Over the years, Rich Apodaca has also blogged about the many limitations to the common connection-table type representation. (Helicene chirality, delocalized bonding systems, weird aromaticity all jump to mind.) e.g. https://depth-first.com/articles/2021/05/04/of-zero-order-bonds-and-bonding-systems/ <https://depth-first.com/articles/2021/05/04/of-zero-order-bonds-and-bonding-systems/> https://depth-first.com/articles/2021/07/14/the-trouble-with-huckel/ <https://depth-first.com/articles/2021/07/14/the-trouble-with-huckel/> > And 3D structures are at best a snapshot of a flexible structure. When I started at Pitt, part of my "teaching statement" was about how our common 2D (textbook, slides, printouts, articles) representations hide both the 3D and dynamic nature of real molecules. I also learned by watching students that they have a "hard sphere" concept of lone pairs, orbitals, etc. > I'm too jaded, in that I feel like I've seen all these ideas before and > participated in some of them, and they never made an impact outside the core > community. Not to disillusion Suliman, but I would suggest there are a variety of resources out there, e.g. : Cheminformatics Online Collaborative Course http://olcc.ccce.divched.org <http://olcc.ccce.divched.org/> - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01035 <https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01035> : TeachCADD - https://volkamerlab.org/projects/teachopencadd/ <https://volkamerlab.org/projects/teachopencadd/>
_______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list Blueobelisk-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
