From: Egon W. <ego...@gm...> - 2009-01-15 06:37:19
|
On 1/14/09, Christoph Steinbeck <ste...@eb...> wrote: > Egon Willighagen wrote: > > On 1/14/09, Christoph Steinbeck <ste...@eb...> wrote: > >> So, I think c1ccc1 should result in a 4-membered ring with all > >> aromaticity flags set. > > > > That's not what the SMILES says... not even in OpenSMILES, which is > > more strictly defined. 'c' is not an aromatic SMILES. > > Who knows what the SMILES says - in this respect. > You will remember that we've discussed this again and again and we never > found one normative source. Yes, I know :( That's why I am worried that we want to change the SmilesParser yet again... Right now, it is at a career lowth of failing unit tests... I hate to see that change... Egon PS, IMHO OpenSMILES.org *is* pretty normative, a Blue Obelisk object, and written by those who know the original SMILES standard pretty well... -- ---- http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ |