Hello Since none of you guys have come across the need for dreamed-up space groups, I guess the need is somewhat limited. These artifacts are tools used to help in the understanding of crystal (not molecular) structures so rarely get published.
Could you please outline a plausible example where the current implementation is a serious limitation?
I believe Ralph can handle C-1 so the attached example would not be a problem, but it demonstrates the situation. Table 3 gives basic parameters for four compounds. It is evident that I and II are related, and that III anf IV are related. What is not evident without computation is that all four CRYSTAL STRUCTURES are related. This becomes evident if you transform I and II to the correct C-centred cell. In each pair of tables 4 & 5 and 6 & 7 atomic parameters can be compared directly. If the P to C transformation is made, all four tables can be compared by inspection. In this case, the referees and editors refused to accept a non standard SG, so the text of the paper becomes laborious, explaining what would otherwise have been obvious. In higer symmetry SGs it may be easier to compare structures if even more bizzare SG are invented, or if non-standard origins are used.
You can create any P1 cell you want, it is totally trivial: first use e.g. xray_structure.expand_to_p1(), then loop over the translations you want to duplicate the atoms. We can easily add methods to do it in one call. Note that the cctbx is open source, with the possibility of write access to the main source repository.
Im sure this will be true, and that someone will provide the user-interface for generating the basis vectors form the new (probably enlarged) cell and new atomic parameters after the expansion. Im sure the SM-tbx folk have more pressing problems to deal with than worrying about this minority application Best wishes David