oh good!
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Robert Hanson wrote:
> > But there was a price. Up until now we have had this line in build.xml:
> >
> >source="1.3" target="1.1"
> >
> > That now reads
> >
> >source="1.4
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Robert Hanson wrote:
> But there was a price. Up until now we have had this line in build.xml:
>
> source="1.3" target="1.1"
>
> That now reads
>
> source="1.4" target="1.4"
>
> For Jmol 11.9. Is there some reason we should be sticking with th
Please do test that, Jonathan! Please, others who can, please test this
latest on your pages. It's now passed all the tests I have, but I'm still a
bit worried that I have missed something.
I've finished checking the code back in. My weekend goal was to improve
basic performance of Jmol's handling
Can't think of anything I've worked on that requires the backwards
compatibility. We'll just have to test.
Jonathan
On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Robert Hanson wrote:
> Well, a little project I started over the weekend turned into a
> monster. But I think it's done, and if there are no bugs, I'
Well, a little project I started over the weekend turned into a monster. But
I think it's done, and if there are no bugs, I'll be amazed. The goal was to
increase performance speed, and one little test I did suggested that script
processing, in particular where math or atom selections are involved,
