Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It seems that 1) would be a little more involved in terms of coding,
> but also, by specifying a max depth, one might fail to properly clone
> an object in some cases (especially if max depth is set to a default).
>
> However all this is only releva
> I cannot remember why I (commit rev 3087) added the cloning of
> IChemObjects, and would actually propose to not clone these
> properties.
So do I.
Stefan
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. M
On Nov 27, 2007, at 7:53 AM, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> Indeed, there is a JUnit test which looks like:
>
> IChemObject chemObject1 = builder.newChemObject();
> Hashtable props1 = new Hashtable();
> IAtom atom = builder.newAtom("C");
> props1.put("atom", atom);
>
Hi all,
a recently reported bug involves code added to the CDK library over 3 years ago:
IChemObject instances that are properties of the IChemObject are
cloned for the cloned IChemObject. Example:
IAtomContainer container1 = builder.newAtomContainer();
IAtom atom1 = builder.newAtom();
container
4 matches
Mail list logo
