Pair modify compute no

this means that what you complained about, i.e. that the tail
correction was active is not correct either.

Yes I agree. Sorry for that.

Your patch is necessary if one uses the following option and expect that the tail corrections to be turned off automatically.

pair_style lj/cut/coul/cut 10
pair_modify mix arithmetic tail yes compute no
bond_style harmonic
angle_style harmonic
dihedral_style harmonic

Time PotEng 1 2 3 4
0 -0.044199923 -0.044199923 0 0 0

Arun

this means that what you complained about, i.e. that the tail
correction was active is not correct either.

Yes I agree. Sorry for that.

Your patch is necessary if one uses the following option and expect that the
tail corrections to be turned off automatically.

well, it is not exactly "necessary" because, like i already mentioned,
the combination of tail yes (or shift yes) and compute no does not
make sense. so a person asking for this combination would get what
he/she asks for. nevertheless, it has no performance cost and is easy
to implement, so educating people to not ask for meaningless things
can be done.

axel.