Daniel,
you mentioned in your original email: " if you used the default get_interacting_particles, (you are probably doing a bad thing), you would also have to add ParticlesList get_interacting_particles() const { return ParticlesList(1, Particles(particles_begin(), particles_end())); } in your header. "
The DOMINO optimizer is using get_interacting_particles to build the restraint graph of the particles. In addition, In assembler Frido and I use this function for analysis purposes.
If you are going a head with your change - can you please make sure that all of the existing restraints ( maybe except for non-bonded) implement this function? thanks, Keren. On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Daniel Russel wrote:
> Ben Webb wrote: >> Daniel Russel wrote: >>> I had mentioned this a while ago and would like to bring it up >>> again since now seems like a good time to deal with it: I would >>> like to remove the particle storage in the Restraint base class. >> >> Sounds reasonable to me. But why not go further and port existing >> restraints not by using the IMP_LIST macros but by giving them >> containers? Do you see any need for a restraint containing a >> particle list that a container would not fulfill? > No particular reason, just more work and requires actual interface > changes. I'd be for it in general though. > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev