Axel Naumann wrote: > > Hi, > > I have some questions to the particle section of root: > > * Could the particles inherit from TLorentzVector instead of having members > like angles, momenta, etc? > > * TParticle is already a very specific implementation of a generic particle > class and due to its name it's blocking more general ones - which should be > called TParticle instead. I know I could make it "invisible" for my classes > or rename it - but I'd prefer if you could either rename it, make it general > (such that e.g. TMCParticle and TParticlePDG can inherit from TParticle) or > get rid of it. It doesn't look too much supported and developed anyway (no > accusation here, it might even be better to take it out of the root package, > I think it's too specific and too "applied")... > Axel: the question of how the "right" HEP particle classes should look like and how they should be called is pretty delicate and sensitive, so why don't we discuss it as discussion could help somebody to implement the right thing? To start the discussion - could you describe how you see a generic particle class in a little bit more detail? - I personally would like to see very much how you combine in one generic class 2 features mentioned above: a) it is a 4-momentum and b) it could be a base class for TParticlePDG On the subject of one of the classes you mentioned: TParticle it is a reasonably well implemented and handy description of MCgenerator-level particle. For this purpose it is pretty generic. The fact that it is simple reflects nothing but simplicity of MC particle thing itself. For the moment there is no better replacement for it, I personally also don't see if it misses anything serious. We're using it for quite a while and are quite happy with it. Customized Streamer won't hurt, but this is already a detail. Anyway, until there is a better replacement, I'd vote for TParticle to stay as it is. best, Pasha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 17:50:43 MET