Bob Hanson wrote: > Q: Anyone object to having DOTS turn on and off in response to the > currently selected set of atoms?
That's the behaviour I would expect. It's consistent with other renderings. > Q: When this is done, should the dot set be recalculated so that places > where there was overlap with now-invisible atoms are filled in? Or > should there be no additional calculation and only dots that were > present before present after? and Rolf Huehne wrote: > Before you stated otherwise a few > mails ago, I just took the 'dots' rendering as a kind of transparent > spacefill rendering. I thought the same. Given the recalculation step, I am not sure which option is better. To me, any ofthe two can be bearable; one can always rewrite the script to get the other. Bob Hanson wrote: > Q: Should the presence of dots and no other aspect of an atom count as > "visible" for that atom? I think yes. Thanks for all this work, Bob. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
