On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Greg Landrum <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, this is fixed in rev1573.
Cool! Thank you very much for implementing it. > I used the operator == instead of =. It > might even be worth considering using @=, since substructure and > superstructure searches are @> and <@, respectively. Yeah, consistency is fine. I wonder if it makes sense to try being consistent with the usual operators where semantic is the same; for instance, you search for an exact string with "SELECT * FROM table WHERE column='string';" so I'd be tempted to use the same "SELECT * FROM table WHERE mol='smiles';" on molecular DBs. Likewise, searching for a substructure looks close to the "LIKE" statement. What do you think? -- Gianluca Sforna http://morefedora.blogspot.com http://identi.ca/giallu - http://twitter.com/giallu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oracle to DB2 Conversion Guide: Learn learn about native support for PL/SQL, new data types, scalar functions, improved concurrency, built-in packages, OCI, SQL*Plus, data movement tools, best practices and more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Rdkit-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
