[Rivet] New projection method names without "projection"

[Christian Gutschow]

Hi Andy, all,

schedule seems alright to me. Here are some more alternatives for the brainstorming: commission, employ, engage, enlist, appoint, establish. ;-)

Cheers,
Chris

On 10 Jun 2016, at 20:58, Andy Buckley <andy.buckley at cern.ch<mailto:andy.buckley at cern.ch>> wrote:

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<mailto: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
_______________________________________________
Rivet mailing list
Rivet at projects.hepforge.org<mailto:Rivet at projects.hepforge.org>
https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet




 —

 Dr. Christian Gütschow

 TU Dresden
 Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik
 Zellescher Weg 19
 01069 Dresden

 > at CERN: 104-02-C02
 > at IKTP: E17, ASB
 > chris.g at cern.ch<mailto:chris.g at cern.ch>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.hepforge.org/lists-archive/rivet/attachments/20160610/c1f3752c/attachment.html>