[Rivet] New projection method names without "projection"

[David Grellscheid]

Hi Andy,

Here's my preference (after some thesaurus googling):

drop add() and reg()

use schedule(), enroll(), record() or catalog() instead of register()

We shouldn't multiply names for the same functionality. One deprecated 
name and one replacement is enough.

See you,

   David



On 10/06/2016 16:30, Andy Buckley wrote:
> Ah, I see!
>
> Anyway, yes we have had feedback that people don't really understand how
> the concept maps to the Rivet code so I think hiding by default is a
> good thing. And if it allows us to have shorter function names without
> losing clarity, that's no bad thing.
>
> I've implemented this on the 2.5 branch now. The one stumbling block was
> with the idea of register(someproj, "SomeName"): 'register' is a C(++)
> keyword, so I think we can't use it as a function name -- right? For now
> I've created aliases for addProjection called both add(...) and
> reg(...): any better ideas, or a preference to drop one? While I prefer
> the name "register" to "add", given that addProjection is being retained
> and that "reg" is not so obvious to remember or interpret, I'm inclined
> to ditch it. Thoughts?
>
> Andy
>
>
> On 24/05/16 14:17, Leif Lönnblad wrote:
>> On 2016-05-24 00:06, Andy Buckley wrote:
>>> On 23/05/16 22:31, Frank Siegert wrote:
>>
>>> I quite like the picture, but a) the algebraic mapping is not exact
>>> because you can't actually do P(P(Event))
>>
>> In fact that was how the original design intended things to work, but it
>> was lost along way. Don't quite remember why.
>>
>> Anyway, I don't mind hiding the word from the users, if they are
>> confused by it.
>>
>>
>> /Leif
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rivet mailing list
>> Rivet at projects.hepforge.org
>> https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet
>
>