On Oct 28, 2007 10:51 PM, Chris MacRaild <
macraild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Edward,
I've had a quick look over that discussion to try and remind myself
what I might have intended for residue.merge(). My best guess is that
it was in relation to situations where a user might want to treat
sugars and bases (or amides and methyls) as different residues. In
such a case, residue.merge() would merge the amide and methyl, say, to
revert to the conventional residue definition.
So the function I think I was proposing is quite different to a
residue.copy(), but might be a bit esoteric to be worthwhile.
Gary, do you remember any of the context for the residue.merge()
proposal? Was it product of one of our 'off-list' discussions?
In any case, I am obviously not committed to the idea, so feel free to
let it drop.
Hi Chris
this is roughly my memory as well. Can you remember what the reasoning for having different pseudo residues for say a sugar and a base would be? Was it a question of problems with different CSA tensors or motional models...?
My view is that if it is a marginal feature we should leave it for now and reintroduce it if and when we find someone with a practical need or have more spare time!
regards
gary
Re: r3383 - /1.3/docs/data_model_redesign