Closed LonnekeScheffer closed 9 months ago
correct is shown here: https://www.imgt.org/IMGTScientificChart/Numbering/IMGTIGVLsuperfamily.html
we add 0.001 for each position (we get e.g. [112.005, 112.01, 112.15] when it should be [112.1, 112.10, 112.15...]) should be a small fix, but need to take a thorough look to see if any other parts of the code depends on the way we do it currently
Fixed in PR#163
pavlovicmilena
commented
9 months ago
correct is shown here: https://www.imgt.org/IMGTScientificChart/Numbering/IMGTIGVLsuperfamily.html
we add 0.001 for each position (we get e.g. [112.005, 112.01, 112.15] when it should be [112.1, 112.10, 112.15...]) should be a small fix, but need to take a thorough look to see if any other parts of the code depends on the way we do it currently