Daniel Russel wrote: > I think we should have a new class of object, which I am, for the time > being calling a ParticleRefiner to handle hierarchical collision > detection and generation of particles on the fly. I am currently using > it to generate particles to cover the edges of my unstructured chains in > order to better preserve excluded volume. The interface looks more or > less like: > > ParticleRefiner { > // return a bunch of particles which refines p > Particles refine(Particle p) > // clean up the particles which refined p if needed > cleanup(Particle p, Particles); > }; > > And the methods must be called as a pair with the result of the first > method passed as the second argument to the second method.
Sounds reasonable to me. But what if the user passes a different list to cleanup? What sort of bad things would happen? Why couldn't the Refiner just keep its own list of particles?
Also, it seems like there's some overlap between this and CoverBondsScoreState.
Ben