From: Djamel Ouerdane (ouerdane@nbi.dk)
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 12:38:56 EDT
Hi, I have a couple of coments on this topic (not long email :) > > I agree what's in bdst is good, and after Kris' recent additions it's > usable for pp and dAu as well. I don't know if C4 and TOFWII are there > yet, but they should just be added in the standard way. What I really like > about bdst as a base framework is that it really contains (almost) > everything that the global tracking/pid step does - i.e. there are no cuts > done bewtween the gtr and bdst files. It may sound obvious, but let's make > sure it stays that way. > it's not totally true for the BFS part. But this is due to how we do BFS tracks. You can check that all BFS tracks will have only status kOk unlike FFS and MRS tracks. > bdstMrsAna and its relatives I recently developed a post bdst framework with Peter's help. It's not official and I don't know how much official it can be but it turned out to be much more convenient than the old bdstMrsAna and other stuff I wrote a long time ago. The stuff also uses a lot some improved versions of Claus's classes (dst readers, selection classes, etc). Maybe Peter or Claus can say a word about that, I don't have time to write a note about it. But on the other hand, this code is not for computer geeks, there is no root tricks, meaning that it could be optimized a lot more if people wanted. The main advantage compared to bdst[Fs,Mrs]Ana is that it keeps the event structure, has only one type (Double) and therefore makes it fast to read. My analysis and Peter's were done with this soft. But I must say that at some point, post dst stuff is difficult to make standard... Djam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 29 2003 - 12:40:35 EDT