HepMC event record
|
Should it be GenException? It's a HepMC thing, but not really a "gen" thing
Should it be GenException? It's a HepMC thing, but not really a "gen" thing
Improve numerical stability
Improve numerical stability
Improve numerical stability
Improve numerical stability
Improve numerical stability
Improve numerical stability
Move to attributes?
Move to attributes?
Move to attributes?
Move to attributes?
Move to attributes?
Optimize. Currently each particle/vertex is erased separately
Optimize. Currently each particle/vertex is erased separately
Optimize. Currently each particle/vertex is erased separately
Set/require status = 4 at the same time?
Require/set status = 4
Set/require status = 4 at the same time?
Require/set status = 4
Set/require status = 4 at the same time?
Set/require status = 4 at the same time?
Set/require status = 4 at the same time?
Set/require status = 4 at the same time?
Describe!
Describe!
Describe!
Describe!
Describe!
Describe!
Describe!
Describe!
Describe!
Throw exception instead? Or return ssize_t for better signed/unsigned safety?
Throw exception instead? Or return ssize_t for better signed/unsigned safety?
We need a way to check if there is a position on this vertex, without messing up the interface. Is has_position() too intrusive?
We need a way to check if there is a position on this vertex, without messing up the interface. Is has_position() too intrusive?
We need a way to check if there is a position on this vertex, without messing up the interface. Is has_position() too intrusive?
Are these really needed? Friends usually indicate a problem...
Are these really needed? Friends usually indicate a problem...
Are these really needed? Friends usually indicate a problem...
Needed? Wouldn't it be good enough to just rely on user testing nullness of parent_event()?
Needed? Wouldn't it be good enough to just rely on user testing nullness of parent_event()?
Needed? Wouldn't it be good enough to just rely on user testing nullness of parent_event()?
Should we be returning a smart ptr?
Should we be returning a smart ptr?
Should we be returning a smart ptr?
We need a way to check if there is a position on this vertex, without messing up the interface. Is has_position() too intrusive?
We need a way to check if there is a position on this vertex, without messing up the interface. Is has_position() too intrusive?
We need a way to check if there is a position on this vertex, without messing up the interface. Is has_position() too intrusive?
Do we just make write_event and fill_next_event instead?
Do we just make write_event and fill_next_event instead?
HEPEVT_Wrapper::check_hepevt_consistency unimplemented!
HEPEVT_Wrapper::check_hepevt_consistency unimplemented!
Add feature detection macros? (clearly version-related)
Add feature detection macros? (clearly version-related)
Add 'family'='parents'+'children' and 'relatives'='ancestors'+'descendants'(+'siblings')?
Add 'family'='parents'+'children' and 'relatives'='ancestors'+'descendants'(+'siblings')?
Add 'family'='parents'+'children' and 'relatives'='ancestors'+'descendants'(+'siblings')?
Use unique_ptr
Use unique_ptr
Use unique_ptr
Use unique_ptr
Use unique_ptr
Use unique_ptr
This class has no state – why isn't it just a namespace with free functions?
This class has no state – why isn't it just a namespace with free functions?
rewrite global attributes
rewrite global attributes
Unify file/stream treatment
Unify file/stream treatment
Unify file/stream treatment
Move some of the helper functions, logging, exceptions, etc. to specific files
Change to a namespace
Move some of the helper functions, logging, exceptions, etc. to specific files
Change to a namespace