> got it -- sorry, didn't see this and was testing on my own when I > spotted this. > Say, I have a good idea: > > http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/jmol/test/10.1/new.htm > > This page will feature all of the new features we introduce. We'll make > one up for each new release, and > a separate directory "prerelease" for the ongoing development. The rule > will be: If we add functionality, we add an entry on this page. What do > you think?
Sounds good. > That's where I found the order bug -- do you see it in the commit trace? Yes. Thanks. > If there's one thing I HAVE learned over the years it > is that mixing numerics and defined constants > is just asking for trouble. You are right about that ... mea culpa > You had a return there of 0 that I changed > to NULL_BOND_ORDER. This is passed to makeConnections(), > deleteConnections(), and autoBond(), changed to > JmolConstants.BOND_COVALENT_SINGLE for bondAB.setOrder(order) and > frame.bondAtoms(atomA, atomB, order). It looks solid to me. > > Did you need that return of 0 for something from bondOrderFromString()? > If so, then we should define > > BOND_ORDER_INVALID = 0 > > and do something with it. No. At one point I had defined '0' as the 'null bond order' ... then I changed it. Thanks for taking care of this. 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-users mailing list Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
