Dear Gary,
Worth thinking about.
Tha background is that we need to allow for assignment to multiple
resionances, for e.g. J couplings, RDCs, or MQ shifts. But in the vast
majority of the cases there is only a single shift. We could have had
multiple resonances in all cases, but deided against it since it would an
unnecessary pain in the 99% of cases where you only wanted one, and since
this part of the model is used a lot. Your proposal would combine the
advantages of both. It would make the model a little more confusing,
though.
I'll see what TIm says too. To speed the discussion along, could you give
an example (or more) of when one might want to use this?
Yours,
Rasmus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Rasmus H. Fogh Email: [log in to unmask]
Dept. of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge,
80 Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1GA, UK. FAX (01223)766002
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Gary S. Thompson wrote:
> Dear Developers
>
> Just a passing thought (and if I have said it before or there is an
> obvious answer I apologise) Iif you are looking at peakDimContribs there
> are two classes that may be present peakDimContrib and peakDimContribN.
> Both contain resonances but are accessed differently resonance
> (peakDimContrib can contain only one resonance) vs resonances so you
> have to special case. Shouldn't there be a way of getting the resonances
> in a peakDimContrib irrespective of the type of peakDimContrib...
>
> e.g. abstractPeakDimContrib.getAllResonances() for example
>
>
> regards
> gary
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Gary Thompson
> Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology,
> University of Leeds, Astbury Building,
> Leeds, LS2 9JT, West-Yorkshire, UK Tel. +44-113-3433024
> email: [log in to unmask] Fax +44-113-2331407
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|