Friedrich Foerster wrote: > sorry for my ignorance of this discussion for a while. > i presume most people will want to use imp in a probabilistic > framework rather than doing simulations with physical form-fields.
Who knows? But we should allow for both.
> philosophically, i agree with with daniel that the name 'Harmonic' > requires a spring constant.
Yes, you are a bit late here - we changed that ages ago!
> to make everybody happy, i would propose a new name for functions that > call the harmonic functions, but have spatial parameters as an input. > for example LogGauss, LogUpperDistanceGauss or whatever you agree with.
Agreed - it's straightforward to introduce new unary functions. We can just stick them in as and when necessary.
> i think the current workaround, i.e. introducing scaling parameters > through the back-door, is a bit unsatisfactory and will confuse most > users.
I didn't realize that's what you were using scaling of restraints for, but I don't think that was ever their intended purpose. Scaling has been very useful for people tweaking their scoring functions - and I don't see that going away - but for your purposes it certainly sounds like new unary functions are a better bet.
Ben