Indeed. I thought I put that in my email, but I guess I forgot :-) Actually, now, a restraint must implement it as it is a pure virtual method.
On Jan 17, 2009, at 3:45 AM, Keren Lasker wrote:
> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev