> > The problem was indeed with the propagate function. When there was no
> > shift for a resonance in the target peak's new shiftlist there was nothing
> > to check the tolerances against and the resonance just became linked to
> > the first available dim, rather than the same number dim as the source.
>
> I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't going for the compatible dim with
> the closest shift, rather than same numbering, be a good default behaviour
> (at leat for propagate)? Using dim numbering assumes the spectra are
> recorded in a particular way.
Going for the closest isn't always right either when the shifts of the two
dimensions are similar. - You could get crossover.
The overriding factor though was to fix things for Justin quickly. And
given that he'd already had issues because of similar shifts in his
NOESY spectra I thought it best to stick with dim numbers for now (the
isotope type is still checked).
Eventually I'll move to a system where the equivalency of dim type, given
refExperiments, is checked.
T.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Tim Stevens Email: [log in to unmask]
Department of Biochemistry [log in to unmask]
University of Cambridge Phone: +44 1223 766022 (office)
80 Tennis Court Road +44 7816 338275 (mobile)
Old Addenbrooke's Site +44 1223 364613 (home)
Cambridge CB2 1GA WWWeb: http://www.bio.cam.ac.uk/~tjs23
United Kingdom http://www.pantonia.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ +NH3CH(CH(CH3)OH)C(O)NHCH(CH(CH3)CH2CH3)C(O)NHCH(CH2CH2SCH3)CO2- -------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|