From: Old A. <jr...@im...> - 2005-03-09 05:49:15
|
Miguel wrote: >>G'day, >> >> >> >>> as a user, I would say no, because this would be less flexible and not >>> consistent with the behavior of all the other property changing >>>commands. >>> Regards, Jan >>> >>> > Would it be possible to have the "set measurements ..." command >>>update >>> > the units on *all* distance labels? >>> >>> >>Perhaps both behaviours could be supported, say, something like >> >>set measurements ... affects subsequent measurement labels >>set measurements ALL ... affects all measurement labels >> >>Not all users will want to use script to do this so an "update all" >>checkbox in the "Measurements" menu could determines which of these >>behaviours applies. >> >> >> > >Chris, > >Several other people have asked for this, so you are not the only one. > >I think that having a 'setting' to control the behavior would be OK. > >We need to specify the behavior a bit more ... > >Let's talk a little bit about what the criteria would be for deciding >whether or not the measurements get replicated. > >Different frames/models are can be completely different. Sometimes they >all contain exactly the same atoms in exactly the same order ... only the >position changes. This is what happens in many animations. > > > why not linking the set measurements command to the current selected set, this was consistent and flexible. select all select /3 regards, Jan >>From one frame to the next, we need to decide whether or not the >measurements could be replicated. > >I suppose that we use one or more of the following: > > - the two frames have the same number and types of atoms in exactly the >same order > > - the atom numbers of the elements being measured are the same > > - the atom numbers and types of the elements being measured are the same > >Don't know ... does anyone have any other thoughts. > > >Miguel > > |