> Fabian, Miguel, what do you think about that?
>
I think that sounds fine.
I have come up with a few ideas I would like you to try out on the slower
machines.
But we will have to talk about them next week.
mth
--
Miguel Howard
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 10:45, E.L. Willighagen wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 October 2002 10:07, Fabian Dortu wrote:
> > I confirm, I run the previous version!
>
> Ok, that is nice to hear. Miguel, your code does apparently *not* introduce
> the bug, but *probably* due to the better performance, the bu
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 10:07, Fabian Dortu wrote:
> I confirm, I run the previous version!
Ok, that is nice to hear. Miguel, your code does apparently *not* introduce
the bug, but *probably* due to the better performance, the bug become easier
to detect.
I would therefore suggest to incl
I confirm, I run the previous version!
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 09:00, mth wrote:
> >> > I've just done a test on the b5 branch. I still get the bug.
>
> >> I am quite confident that I backed out all the code that I checked in.
>
> > Then it means that the bug *does* also occur in the previous
> >
>> > I've just done a test on the b5 branch. I still get the bug.
>> I am quite confident that I backed out all the code that I checked in.
> Then it means that the bug *does* also occur in the previous
> implementation altough it is much more difficult to reproduce it:
Fabian,
You can easily c
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 22:11, mth wrote:
> >
> > I've just done a test on the b5 branch. I still get the bug.
> >
> Fabian,
>
> I am quite confident that I backed out all the code that I checked in.
>
> mth
Then it means that the bug *does* also occur in the previous
implementation altough it is
>
> I've just done a test on the b5 branch. I still get the bug.
>
Fabian,
I am quite confident that I backed out all the code that I checked in.
mth
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.c
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 11:09, mth wrote:
I've just done a test on the b5 branch. I still get the bug.
> >
> > Ok, roll back the changes...
> >
> Done.
>
> Let me know when you have branched. I will then reintroduce more slowly
> with smaller steps, allowing you to verify after each check-in.
>
>
> Ok, roll back the changes...
>
Done.
Let me know when you have branched. I will then reintroduce more slowly
with smaller steps, allowing you to verify after each check-in.
mth
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 10:05, mth wrote:
> > All atoms are drawn in the upper left corner of the Jmol viewing
> > window... Isn't that screencoordinates (0,0)? Or is lower left (0,0)?
>
> yes, upper left is 0,0
> Now I have a picture of what you are seeing ... but I don't now why it is
> happe
> All atoms are drawn in the upper left corner of the Jmol viewing
> window... Isn't that screencoordinates (0,0)? Or is lower left (0,0)?
yes, upper left is 0,0
Now I have a picture of what you are seeing ... but I don't now why it is
happening.
I have been using the Mac for about 1/2 hour and h
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 08:57, Miguel Howard wrote:
> > I've been testing the samples/ files with the CVS version... then I
> > realized that I could live with the problem in the next release, *if*
> > loading a new file would reset the screen coordinates... now the become
> > zero at a yet u
> I've been testing the samples/ files with the CVS version... then I
> realized that I could live with the problem in the next release, *if*
> loading a new file would reset the screen coordinates... now the become
> zero at a yet unknown event, and then stay zero... if they would be
> reset to
On Monday 28 October 2002 11:21, mth wrote:
> > I've found a bug. When looking at samples/dna.xyz, choosing
> > Display->Wire Frame Rotation, I get this:
>
> > Could you please have a look at this? It might be difficult, as it seems
> > to be a timing issue, which is harder to locate on faster ma
> I've found a bug. When looking at samples/dna.xyz, choosing
> Display->Wire Frame Rotation, I get this:
>
...
> Could you please have a look at this? It might be difficult, as it seems
> to be a timing issue, which is harder to locate on faster machines... I
> use a Pentium II, 300 Mhz.
>
Eg
On Sunday 27 October 2002 22:34, mth wrote:
> I checked in some changes which improve redisplay/rotation performance.
> Basic approach is to use integer variables for screen coordinates instead
> of Point3f objects. This allows operations without generating/discarding
> objects.
> Should be no visi
I checked in some changes which improve redisplay/rotation performance.
Basic approach is to use integer variables for screen coordinates instead
of Point3f objects. This allows operations without generating/discarding
objects.
Should be no visible changes to functionality.
mth
Detail
--
I h
17 matches
Mail list logo
