On 5/3/11 5:02 PM, Daniel Russel wrote: >> 1 Residue index is sequential; you are (pretty much) guaranteed >> that residue(our index+1) is the next residue and residue(0) is the >> first residue in a chain. > We don't have any explicit storage of this in IMP other than a > Residue being the ith child of a Chain.
Ah yes, you're absolutely right, of course. It was the child indices I was thinking of.
> Currently this "PDB residue number" is what is called "residue index" > in IMP. The insertion code is stored separately and not many > operations support it as no one has cared. One can always add > insertion code support to Selections and such when there is demand.
Makes sense. In that case it should be made clear to the user that the residue number/index is not unique, since it is a common mistake to assume it is. (I guess we should mention that we don't enforce that the (residue number, insertion code) tuple is unique within a chain.)
Ben