Somehow parts of my previous mail are not shown correctly here is a plan
text version:
Hi,
Scaffold Hunter also has a more recent Publication:
Visual Analysis of Biological Activity Data with Scaffold Hunter
Karsten Klein, Oliver Koch, Nils Kriege, Petra Mutzel, Till Schäfer
Molecular
Hi,
We have a molecule that does not appear to render properly -
Tetrakis(acetonitrile)copper(I) hexafluorophosphate. Canonical SMILES:
[Cu+].CC#N.CC#N.CC#N.CC#N.F[P-](F)(F)(F)(F)F
The correct rendering is something like this:
[image: Inline image 1]
But we're getting this.
[image: Inline
Dear Steve,
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Steve Roy wrote:
> [Cu+].CC#N.CC#N.CC#N.CC#N.F[P-](F)(F)(F)(F)F
>
with the latest CDK version (1.5.x) I get something that more resembles
what you expect:
Hi,
Scaffold Hunter also has a more recent Publication:
*Visual Analysis of Biological Activity Data with Scaffold Hunter*
Regards,
Till
Am Donnerstag, 11. August 2016, 09:50:17 schrieb Egon Willighagen:
> Hi all,
>
> I am finishing up a third CDK paper, which you can find the LaTeX
>
Hi
>From the perspective of a user, I prefer the
{major}.{minor}.{maintenance} versioning system. It also matches the
numbering system other applications are using.
Emilio
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Rajarshi Guha wrote:
> I like the major.minor form because it's
This has come up before, but wanted to hear from users.
Currently the project versioning system is 1.{odd/even}.{number} where by 1
is fixed for now, odd/even for stability (e.g. 1.4.x stable, 1.5.x
unstable), the last number just increments. This system hints that 1.4 is
the preferred version as
I like the major.minor form because it's closer to what is happening in
terms of code changes.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:27 AM, John M wrote:
> This has come up before, but wanted to hear from users.
>
> Currently the project versioning system is
7 matches
Mail list logo