Hi Jens Ivar I don't know if we reached a conclusion. Maybe the nicest thing would be to have an ID number, that way you could go whatever direction you wanted between BrTPCCluster, BrTPCHitCluster and BrDetectorHit. Root has some stuff for finding objects in a container, called FindObject(). The default is to use the default IsEqual() for comapring objects which compares the address of the objects. You can overwrite this and get some different behaviour by trying to cast the pointer to the different classes and then compare ID. I have used the IsEqual and FindObject in a very simple way in BrTPCSequence/BrTPCClusterFinder::FindClusters. Maybe one could also use operator overloading of the ==, I have no feel for this, but maybe someone has an idea. Anyway, I don't think anyone would think it is a bad idea if you implement something;) A few thoughts Peter :-) --------------------------------- )-: |Peter H L Christiansen aka PAN @ NBI | |EMAIL : pchristi@nbi.dk | |OFFICE : Tb1 @ NBI | |PHONE : 353 25269 | |SNAIL : Hans Tavsensgade 35, 4th | |PHONE : 35 349336 | :-D --------------------------------- \-: On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Jens Ivar Jordre wrote: > Morning BRATers of the world. > > I just wonder, did we reach any conclusion about how to match instances of > BrDeterctorHit and BrTPCHitCluster? Nobody answered my last mail > suggesting to assign the address of BrTPCCluster instance to fID member of > its BrDetectorHit descendant. Does that mean that we agree upon this, or > is someone still looking for a better solution? Has anyone implemented > something to be committed to CVS? Just trying to avoid CVS conflicts. :) > > JI > > --- > Jens Ivar Jřrdre, Dep. of Phys., Allégt. 55, N-5007 BERGEN, NORWAY > room 521, e-mail: JensIvar.Jordre@fi.uib.no, phone: (+47) 55 58 27 92 > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 17 2000 - 04:31:08 EST