> While we are at it -- did you decide to abandon the allowance > for radius in connect? > > [ ] r4522 - adds radius to connect
I made a conscious decision to leave it out ... I gather you think that was the wrong decision. > There was a substantial discussion about this on one of the lists. I missed the discussion. > I argued that it would be very difficult to select > those bonds later, That is part of the reason why I was/am uncomfortable with these mechanisms that allow operations outside of the normal 'select' mechanism. But, now that we have introduced multiple ways to affect a set of atoms we have created another problem. > and I thought the agreement was > that we needed to be able to specify a radius > (connectMad) at the time of bond construction. Don't know ... I don't recall. > There's actually a use for connecting with radius = 0. > This allows for a "logical" connection (as useful in > crystal business) without any actual rendering -- a > 0-diameter bond, but still connected. I've already > run into a problem with this in one of my polyhedra demos. The 0-radius problem is just a special case of the general problem. We have created these things, now we need to find them. > If you really think it's impossible, OK, but I'd like > to at least hear your > reasoning as to why that would be. The fundamental reason is ... there is already a perfectly good mechanism to set bond size, it works just fine, and everyone knows it. I see no reason to add the complexity to the connect command. I really think it is a slippery slope. Are we going to allow RasMol units as well as angstroms? Once we set the size as part of the 'connect' command then the next characteristic we are going to want to change is the color. Does that mean we should also add a 'color' option to the 'connect' command. It seems to me that the 'connect' command should do 'connections', not change rendering characteristics. Look, my gut says that this is not a good idea, because it seems to me that it is unnecessarily adding complexity ... but, as I said in a message a few minutes ago, I don't actually *use* Jmol, so I am not the expert on usage. It would be helpful for me to see what others think. You said that there was discussion on the email list about this ... I'll go back and take a look. Feel free to write back and make additional arguments, including telling me that I am just being a 'stick in the mud' (or worse ;-) if that is what you think. Miguel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Jmol-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
