> Miguel, we have this book at St. Olaf. I'll take a look. > > Anthony, do you see any practical problems with delivering > RxRyRz information to the user, or is this more of a concern > in principle?
I am not sure what Anthony thinks ... but I am quite convinced (on principle) that we should use the x-convention as Anthony has recommended. > Does it make any difference, since Jmol doesn't use > RxRyRz for anything right now and wouldn't except for > informing the user of a simple set of rotations that will > generate one specific structure? In the abstract, it doesn't really make any difference. But given that people have worked on this problem and have (generally) agreed that this is the 'standard' way to represent these rotations, then I agree that we should follow it. > Probably when output, these > would be rounded to the nearest integer anyway. > (Though I don't have Miguel's thoughts on that.) To the nearest tenth of a degree. > No one is suggesting that Jmol use RxRyRz for representing arbitrary > rotations internally. Nope. Miguel ----- Open Source Molecular Visualization www.jmol.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
