[Rivet] New projection method names without "projection"

[Andy Buckley]

Ha, we had the same response to "register" being forbidden!

I certainly agree with dropping reg().

schedule() is not bad -- I'd like to know what others think. The only 
flaw is that to me it implies that that projection will be run at a set 
time / order, while in practice it's lazy (and the result may already be 
cached).

enroll() / enrol() will probably suck others into that US/other spelling 
trap ;-)

record() is not quite right -- I feel like it specifies writing 
something to disk immediately.

And catalog()... I don't really know what that implies.

Grr, words. Right, I'm going to try and have a weekend now, and let this 
little word puzzle itch away in the background. Feel free to join me in 
this bikeshedding: names are important ;-)

Andy



On 10/06/16 17:30, David Grellscheid wrote:
> 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
>>
>>


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