Block SMINPUTS

From Wiki Les Houches 09

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Margarete's comment moved to the SMINPUTS page)
Current revision (14:54, 25 June 2009) (view source)
(signature restored)
 
(3 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 1: Line 1:
[http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/LesHouches09Wiki/index.php/Flavour_Les_Houches_Accord#Block_SM_inputs Back to Main Page]
[http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/LesHouches09Wiki/index.php/Flavour_Les_Houches_Accord#Block_SM_inputs Back to Main Page]
-
First of all I apologize if I repeat things, which you might already have discussed. I could not attend the meeting on June 24. I suggest not to put the BLOCK SMINPUTS in the current proposal, since it already exists in the SLHA. Is there maybe a special reason why you put it in the current proposal? [[User: Muhellei|Muhellei]] 13:20, June 25, 2009.
+
First of all I apologize if I repeat things, which you might already have discussed. I could not attend the meeting on June 24. I suggest not to put the BLOCK SMINPUTS in the current proposal, since it already exists in the SLHA. Is there maybe a special reason why you put it in the current proposal? [[User: Muehllei|Muehllei]] 13:20, June 25, 2009.
-
:well the idea is that we are just defining new blocks. SMINPUTS is an old SLHA block and we have no intention of altering it. On the other hand, that block may well in the input or output file of a given flavour program. There is no reason why the input/output files should not contain a mixture of SLHA and FLHA blocks. But you have a point that it might be confusing to have the block in the proposal. We should make clear that we are not redefining it.
+
:well the idea is that we are just defining new blocks. SMINPUTS is an old SLHA block and we have no intention of altering it. On the other hand, that block may well in the input or output file of a given flavour program. There is no reason why the input/output files should not contain a mixture of SLHA and FLHA blocks. But you have a point that it might be confusing to have the block in the proposal. We should make clear that we are not redefining it. Cheers [[User:Slavich|Pietro]] 13:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
-
 
+
-
::Now, a few organizational issues. I am sorry for being pedantic but - in the interest of a healthy development of this wiki-project - we should acquire a few good wiki-habits. First of all, your comment concerns a specific block, so it should appear in the page of that block. I will move this paragraph to the right location. Second, your signature did not appear correctly. You just have to type four tildas (~) at the end of your message and they will be automatically translated into your username and a time stamp. Finally, another good wiki habit - but this is just a suggestion for the future - is to parse the contributions to a discussion thread by starting each paragraph with an appropriate number of colons (:) as I did in the last two paragraphs. Cheers [[User:Slavich|slavich]] 13:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
+

Current revision

Back to Main Page

First of all I apologize if I repeat things, which you might already have discussed. I could not attend the meeting on June 24. I suggest not to put the BLOCK SMINPUTS in the current proposal, since it already exists in the SLHA. Is there maybe a special reason why you put it in the current proposal? Muehllei 13:20, June 25, 2009.

well the idea is that we are just defining new blocks. SMINPUTS is an old SLHA block and we have no intention of altering it. On the other hand, that block may well in the input or output file of a given flavour program. There is no reason why the input/output files should not contain a mixture of SLHA and FLHA blocks. But you have a point that it might be confusing to have the block in the proposal. We should make clear that we are not redefining it. Cheers Pietro 13:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools