Re: [AMBER-Developers] force field naming

From: Jason Swails <jason.swails.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:01:01 -0400

On Apr 28, 2011, at 5:51 PM, "Ray Luo, Ph.D." <ray.luo.uci.edu> wrote:

> This option is even better ...

I agree. Dan's suggestion is the best I've heard yet.

--Jason

>
>>
>> Why not reserve ff for additive models, ua for united atom, and pol
>> for polarizable; ff11, ua11, and pol11. This makes them seem less like
>> one another but still retains the simplicity of Tom's suggestion.
>>
>> -Dan



--
Jason M. Swails
Quantum Theory Project,
University of Florida
Ph.D. Candidate
352-392-4032
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Thu Apr 28 2011 - 17:30:02 PDT
Custom Search