Hi Ed, Ok, the change is made (r8143).
However, it is done in the same way for the intensity_generic() function as for other intensity_*() functions... I am not sure to understand why you propose to do it differently in the intensity_generic() function... As for now, it seems to work fine. Regards, Séb :) Edward d'Auvergne wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Sébastien Morin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Ed, >> >> I am not sure I understand all what you say here... >> >> Am I right if I say that you propose to return the spin_id directly from >> the intensity_*() functions ? This would simplify the code. Perfect. >> > > That's what I meant. > > > >> What about not doing so for the intensity_generic function also ? What >> difference would this make ? This is where I don't follow what you >> say... That function is not already returning the spin_id, right ? >> > > Ah, the intensity_generic() function also needs to do this! But it > should generate it differently - directly from the generic peak > intensity file. Hope that clears things up. > > Regards, > > Edward > > _______________________________________________ relax (http://nmr-relax.com) This is the relax-devel mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, visit the list information page at https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-devel
