Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Jmol - CIP update

And the CHEBI one? :p On 9 May 2017 at 22:43, Robert Hanson wrote: > Thanks, again, John. That fix is checked in. I had forgotten to check for > r and s at other than the root atom. > > That reminds me to say that the BB validation suite is missing a lot of > good tests

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Jmol - CIP update

Thanks, again, John. That fix is checked in. I had forgotten to check for r and s at other than the root atom. That reminds me to say that the BB validation suite is missing a lot of good tests such as this one. So one really great contribution would be to create an open validation set that

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Jmol - CIP update

Bob, John and the group If there is interest in starting up an ‘Open CIP’ project I can offer space on the newly minted IUPAC GitHub account. Let me know if that would be of use and if so who would be the admin for the project. We can invite collaborators after that… Stuart On May 9, 2017,

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Jmol - CIP update

> > With regards to an "Open" CIP -- I strongly suggest not going there. If > you are seriously interested in this, join/form an IUPAC project. For me the main motivation is to not reinvent the wheel, or perhaps not reinvent the wheel worse than it already was. The less people have to think and

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Jmol - CIP update

OK, 967 lines. This now includes chiral bridgehead nitrogens and is just missing a small piece of code for integrating M/P and seqCis/seqTrans into Rule 4b. The algorithm is solid. No particular issues other than that. Does not implement atom-number averaging for mancude rings, but does remove