On May 28, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Daniel Russel wrote:
> Keren Lasker wrote: >>> Sure - if we're going to allow particle deletion, there's no >>> reason to >>> have active/inactive. >>> >> >> We might need it for discrete optimization via MC or inference. >> I would prefer if you'll leave it till we sort out the discrete >> optimization framework. > Currently, once a particle is deactivated, various things will skip > over > it/remove it so trying to reactivate it afterwards would be a bit of a > mess. The problem is that either we have to put checks everywhere in > the > code or we have to remove inactive particles from various lists (like > the set of particles to be checked for nonbonded interactions). > > As a result, we should probably remove the methods now. If we want > them > later, we can put them back and change the other code. > ok - I guess that this is one of the reasons we use svn .... > What would you want to do with inactivating particles as opposed to > deleting them? > __ a particle might not take part in a specific stage of optimization - but it is still relevant for the next steps. > _____________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev