[Rivet] compile error and patch: OSX 10.6.8 or more std C++ compiler

[Andy Buckley]

Hi David,

Yes, I completely agree. We shouldn't "standardise" representations of
things which cannot physically be distinguished. But there may be
aspects of generator records which are physically reasonable (although
not obvious) but the current records don't standardise their
representation, making them Rivet-unsafe. If that's the case (a big if),
I think the right thing to do is to slowly make the representation standard.

There are suggestions that QED ISR and FSR separation might fall into
that category. This scares me, more than the fromDecay() method does,
but I'm not an expert on that physics so it needs some proper experts
(not someone's favourite cherry-picked theorist who shares their view)
to debate and decide whether there is a good enough case. I'm amenable
to the idea of naming the functions or some other way to indicate the
level of "safety".

Andy


On 05/11/13 11:14, David Grellscheid wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> 
>> Our tools are always evolving, but we're quite firm about not
>> implementing "unsafe" (i.e. generator-dependent) features...
> 
> I'm not sure that's a sufficient statement. The lack of safety does not
> come just from being generator dependent. That features are
> generator-dependent also usually means that they are not physically
> realized in QM. And sadly, even getting MC agreement won't change Nature.
> 
> I'm really skeptical about all these "make my life simpler" requests.
> 
>   David
> _______________________________________________
> Rivet mailing list
> Rivet at projects.hepforge.org
> http://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet
> 


-- 
Dr Andy Buckley, Royal Society University Research Fellow
Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow / PH Dept, CERN