Bob,
In a sequence of model editing operations involving the following, I end up
with some atomno/atom-index confusion. The editing steps are:
1) Model bond change.
2) Model duplication.
3) Single model delete.
After this sequence, atomno seems to lose its mathematical relationship to atom
index. This is based on the observation that using bond pick callback atomno to
calculate atom index leads to branch selection problems. That the relationship
between atomno and atom index is the problem is verified by the following:
select atomno=18;prompt({selected}.atomIndex) -- where 18 represents any
atomno being tested.
Prior to the editing, the above produces the expected atomno-1. After the above
editing, the above produces atomno+1.
This is not a problem with simple single model editing. The above convolution
of steps seems to create the issue.
Is this a bug or just the consequence of convolution? Perhaps I should just use
atomno for my subsequent operations.
Otis
--
Otis Rothenberger
[email protected]
http://chemagic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
• 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
• Requirements for releasing software faster
• Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
_______________________________________________
Jmol-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
