Subject:
|
Re: Parts naming conventions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 01:01:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
372 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.database, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Right. And you could denote whether a thingabob was vertical or
> horizontal with a variant on the cis/trans nomenclature as well, instead
> of using vertical. if we agreed that "cis" (or whatever we picked) meant
> an element in the horizontal plane that gripped a rod vertically and so
> forth it would stop the quibbling about vertical meaning orientation of
> the thing or orientation of what it gripped.
Exactly. If everyone assumes a set starting orientation, such as the word
"lego' on the studs is right side up readable from left to right then it would
be trivial top decide upon a convention for describing a particular side or
top/bottom.
cis-/trans-, E-/Z-, (R)-/(S)-, anti-/syn- ortho-/meta-/para- or even something
obscure like top/bottom/left/right.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Parts naming conventions
|
| Jim Hughes wrote: <snip> (...) Right. And you could denote whether a thingabob was vertical or horizontal with a variant on the cis/trans nomenclature as well, instead of using vertical. if we agreed that "cis" (or whatever we picked) meant an (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
