>
> pro's of using [-90, 270] convention:
> 1) one less constraint has to be typed in in order to make plots
> "pretty"
> 2) one less line of code has to be typed in in order to perform
> azimuthal averages properly
Please note that this constraint is what you will be typing for a
gazillion times when writing your analysis script. Imagine zooming into
the left sector using a 0-360 convention?
0-360 will not allow us to do some "quick look" thing we v been doing so
far.
> con's of using [-90, 270] convention:
> 1) despite the intuitive feel that all existing code should NOT need
> to be altered for this new convention, all existing code WILL still
> have to be checked; in particular, i can say for SURE that some of
> the monte Carlo code will HAVE to be changed, despite an intuitive
> feel that it shouldn't
I do not see why Monte Carlo must be changed. Geant has been 0-360 all the
time. We or at least I have not had any problem, in generators, monte
carlo or in reconstruction. We never plot from Coda file, we plot from
reconstructed root file.
> 2) this convention does not agree with what the non-BLAST world
> understands readily, and results shown to and received from the
> non-BLAST world will have to be altered
non-BLAST world only knows BLAST has two sectors, left and right. Try
present a plot with three peaks in azimuthal angle to them ?!
> 3) this convention is yet (another) esoteric concept that we would all
> have to carry around, as it goes against the spherical angle ranges
> that we have all known since 10th grade
I also learned from complex analysis, branch cut should be put wherever
convenient. when integrating a function defined from -x1 to +x2, you do it
from -x1 to +x2, not -x1 to 0 plus 0 to +x2, do you?
Chi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST