Yes. Ethan is right that we try to use symops in MTZ when available, but these symops have to come from somewhere, and an old MTZ file may contain symops derived from an old symop.lib The rationale behind syminfo was to achieve consistency with cctbx, but as this was several years ago, I don't know if it still true. m
-----Original Message----- From: Mailing list for users of COOT Crystallographic Software on behalf of Phil Evans Sent: Thu 6/18/2009 5:45 AM To: COOT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [COOT] Symops: coot vs ccp4 Indeed Paul is right - symop.lib is historical, syminfo.lib is the up-to-date version Phil > Frank von Delft wrote: >> Hi, any particularly cogent reason why the order of symops is >> different in coot and ccp4? (E.g. below: P6522.) >> >> It's fantastically annoying, e.g. when trying to reconstruct symmetry >> mates via ccp4, if the symop number is not what is shown in the coot >> status bar. Or e.g. when trying to sort out inter-unit cell >> disulphides. Etc. >> > > I thought that syminfo.lib was standard ccp4 - and that symop.lib was > only hanging around for historical reasons. > > Perhaps the symmetry order problem would be somewhat ameliorated if you > used expanded labels? > Draw -> Cell & Symmetry -> Expanded Symmetry Atom Labels -> [Tick] > > Perhaps [Tick] should be the default. > > Paul. > -- Scanned by iCritical.
