Can you do this Chris? The reason I thought of this is that I would
like to do my analysis completely avoiding strings and Draw commands and
altimately compile this code with cint or ACliC as you said.
Cheers, Vitaliy
Chris Crawford wrote:
> hi vitaliy,
> that is an excellent idea. the whole idea of ".x ..." was a bad hack
> right from the beginning. you would have to think of some other way
> to handle '-c cutname' options, not that anyone really uses them anyways.
> while we're at it, i would suggest replacing strings.C with an ntuple
> analysis class like 'lr_t' then your draw commands would look more
> like C++, instead of like a cut-and-paste from mars. i can show you
> some examples if you like.
> it might make sense to just add it to TOpt, since it already parses
> the run numbers (and you could put the ntuple file and name in
> ".blastrc" on a per macro basis. it would also be a natural extension
> to setup the machinery for working with dst ntuples.
> see BlastLib2/simple.cc for an example of a macro which can be
> compiled or run from cint or ACLiC without any modifications.
> --chris
>
> #include "blast.h"
> gOpt->Setup("flr");
> gOpt->Chain(n)->Draw(...)
> gOpt->Draw(...) //for multiple datasets
>
>
> vitaliy ziskin wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>> Any thought about making init.C that chains files together a class or
>> part of a class (perhaps TOpt) so that it could be used with a
>> compiled code?
>>
>> Vitaliy
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:30 EST