David L. Mobley

> If we relax this requirement, however, how do we prevent ridiculous elaboration of atom types that do not match atoms? Should we allow parents to not match types but...

(I'm trying to translate two hours of whiteboard scribblings amongst four or five of us into GitHub issues and it doesn't always go well.)

> That should be easy. Do you want me to implement that? (Will take two minutes.) @jchodera - if you want to do that, we'd be delighted. Though note this...

(i.e. if you let us do this, we'll get better at handling smarty on our own, even though it will take us longer than two minutes...)

> How about you take a stab at it and ask if you run into trouble! Perfect.

Just to clarify a question I left unanswered above: > A big question is whether, after defining > > ``` > [#1]-C HC > [#1]-O HO > [$([#1]-C-[#7,#8,F,#16,Cl,Br])] H1 >...

I'm not totally sure I understand all the potential implications/issues here yet. Chris had the idea that one solution to this would be to just not allow torsions like `[*:1]~[#6:2]~[#6:3]~[*:4]`...

OK, I discussed this with Christopher and the take-away, basically, is that **we are already doing things exactly the way we should be**. Some summary: - Yes, my concern is...

@jchodera - yes, the current behavior seems to be exactly what we want.

I'll have to elaborate on this more later, but right before @cbayly13 left, we noticed that we really are going to strongly prefer option 2 here: > 2) automatic division...