Re: [XMakemol-discuss] Manual adjustment of bounding box

[Matt Hodges]

>>>>> Wolfram Quester writes:

 > > OK. This sounds reasonable. All this should eventually be fully
 > > documented, of course.

 > I implemented this fallback in my attached patch. I want to add a
 > help button in the edit-bbox-dialog later. If you want I can edit
 > the documentation to explain the whole bbox stuff.

Yes, please send a patch for the documentation.

 > > Something like "from input" or "from file" is OK, until I think
 > > of anything better. But should it be possible to use the widgets
 > > to adjust the automatically-calculated bounding box?

 > The attached patch uses "from file". I think I'll never use the
 > widgets in the dialog. They are there because in the beginning I
 > wanted to be able to edit the absolute_bbox there. This is still
 > the only use I would have for them. If we agree that we don't need
 > them I'd throw them away.

I rather like the idea of being able to edit the "automatic" bounding
box with these. Do they work with both the "from file" and "automatic"
bounding box at the moment?

 > > I changed this. Additionally the bbox is now visible from the
 > > beginning in this case.

The display bounding box button is toggled on, if necessary? This
sounds OK.

 > > I found it: you have to switch to "Rotate about origin" to get the
 > > whished result. Why this is the case I don't know yet. I stumbled
 > > over it a few time while programming this stuff and I was not very
 > > confident with it. I don't know a real solution yet.

I don't see why this should be necessary. That it is sounds like a
bug.

 > With this version of the patch the bug is resolved. If no bbox_xyz
 > data is specified in the input file, the behaviour of the bbox
 > "from file" is not very usefull, at least if the user doesn't
 > change the values in the input fields.

What happens if they do?

 > Btw, the shown bbox is not the one given in the input file if one
 > changes the visiblility of atoms. I hope to find a solution to that
 > sooner or later.

OK.

Thanks,

Matt