You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@bertiewooster you mentioned that you'd like to see a new release? I'm happy to mint one, but if @jeremyagray is interested in getting push rights to the PyPI package as well, I guess this might be a good opportunity. It would also enhance the bus factor of ChemPy. :)
I don't think the changes in the parser need to be considered as a breaking change, so from that point we might simply call the next version v0.8.3, but I'm also fine naming it v0.9.0 to signal a significant update. Looking at changes in master since v0.8.2, a suggestion for the entry in CHANGES.rst would be:
Updated parser: chemical formulae can now accept fractional stoichiometries, cage structures and more.
Table of elements updated with symbols and names for the (probably) last synthetic elements.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@bjodah yes, I think @jeremyagray's greatly-improved parser merits a release. Personally I would name it 0.9.0 because it is a significant update to a core function.
Thanks for starting the release notes. I suggest adding a sentence to the parser note:
Updated parser: chemical formulae can now accept fractional stoichiometries, cage structures and more. Also, invalid chemical formulae (for example, Ch4; note that the h is not capitalized and there is no element Ch) will now raise an error rather than being interpreted as valid and only including the last valid element (C).
Table of elements updated with symbols and names for the (probably) last synthetic elements.
@bertiewooster you mentioned that you'd like to see a new release? I'm happy to mint one, but if @jeremyagray is interested in getting push rights to the PyPI package as well, I guess this might be a good opportunity. It would also enhance the bus factor of ChemPy. :)
I don't think the changes in the parser need to be considered as a breaking change, so from that point we might simply call the next version v0.8.3, but I'm also fine naming it v0.9.0 to signal a significant update. Looking at changes in master since v0.8.2, a suggestion for the entry in CHANGES.rst would be:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: