<div dir="ltr">Luc<div><br></div><div>I think we'll be OK with that also. Maybe we can reverse your change when CheckCIF is corrected.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Cheers<div><br></div><div>Nigel<div><br></div><div>---</div><div>Nigel W. Moriarty<br>Building 33R0349, Physical Biosciences Division<br>Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory<br>Berkeley, CA 94720-8235<br>Phone : 510-486-5709 Email : NWMoriarty@LBL.gov<br>Fax : 510-486-5909 Web : <a href="http://CCI.LBL.gov" target="_blank">CCI.LBL.gov</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Nicholas Sauter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nksauter@lbl.gov" target="_blank">nksauter@lbl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Luc,<div><br></div><div>No trouble from the LABELIT or DIALS-West perspective.</div><div><br></div><div>Nick</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Nicholas K. Sauter, Ph. D.<br>Computer Staff Scientist, Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging Division<div>Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory<br>1 Cyclotron Rd., Bldg. 33R0345<br>Berkeley, CA 94720<br><a href="tel:%28510%29%20486-5713" value="+15104865713" target="_blank">(510) 486-5713</a><br></div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Luc Bourhis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:luc_j_bourhis@mac.com" target="_blank">luc_j_bourhis@mac.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Consider the following two Hall symbols:<br>
<br>
(1) -C 2y (x,y,-x+z)<br>
(2) -I 2y<br>
<br>
They represent the same setting of the same spacegroup, so in a perfect world the fact that the sgtbx comes with (1) from some list of operators should not matter. Unfortunately, (1) is rejected by CheckCIF right now. Reminder: every single small molecule publication in Acta Cryst. must pass CheckCIF. On the contrary, CheckCIF accepts (2).<br>
<br>
Yes, I know, this is a bug in CheckCIF. But the IUCR is very slow at fixing bug in that kerberos of a program and we do therefore put our Olex2 users in trouble when they use the smtbx to refine their structure, as opposed to ShelXL, which does output (2). Besides, (2) is clearly more pleasing to the human mind than (1). Thus I reckon there is definitively a case to make a change in the cctbx here. The question is at which level?<br>
<br>
I don’t think we want to touch the sgtbx. I am of the opinion of patching iotbx.cif. Would that cause any trouble in Phenix and consort? Any remark or suggestion?<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Luc<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cctbxbb mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cctbxbb@phenix-online.org" target="_blank">cctbxbb@phenix-online.org</a><br>
<a href="http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/cctbxbb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/cctbxbb</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
cctbxbb mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cctbxbb@phenix-online.org">cctbxbb@phenix-online.org</a><br>
<a href="http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/cctbxbb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/cctbxbb</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>