Bookkeepping of names of stereoisomers in conformer generation #11
Description
(not blocking) Oof. This is hard. I think what you've implemented currently is good.
I was initially going to say that we should merge them under the same name, but then they'd ACTUALLY have different parent molecules, so the bookkeeping to keep track of relative conformer energies would go out the window.
If this becomes a pain point, we could add a command line argument for whether to treat enumerated stereoisomers as separate molecules.
Originally posted by @j-wags in #4 (comment)