[Rivet] Cuts rewrite syntax feedback

[Andy Buckley]

On 07/11/13 11:17, David Grellscheid wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have continued with the cuts branch a bit, to see what it will look
> like in analysis code. So far I have only replaced the use of eta
> vectors in final state related projections. Before I continue, I would
> like your feedback on the syntax.
> 
> 
> Please clone
> 
>   ssh://login.hepforge.org//hepforge/hg/rivet/private/cut-combiners
> 
> and then
> 
>   hg up -r b22c0
>   cd src/Analyses
> 
> Look at
> 
>   hg diff -r 4a7e .
> 
> and you'll see the changes.

Hi David,

Thanks for the explicit instructions -- very straightforward!

It's good, but a bit more verbose than I had had in mind. Would it be
possible to make cosmetic wrapper functions for the most common ones,
e.g. EtaIn(-2,2) & PtGtr(5*GeV) rather than Range(Cuts::eta, -2, 2) &
(Cuts::pt > 5*GeV)? I'm excited that it's this far progressed: a huge
improvement over the "classic" form!

Just one cosmetic/consistency point: through the Rivet API we've got
"pT" rather than "pt" for transverse momentum, so I think the Cuts::pt
should follow the same convention. Mea culpa for making it that way in
the first place, but since it's the convention we should stick to it.

Thanks again!
Andy

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