Unify descriptions of potential x-coordinates

[rowlesmr]

In the descriptions of intensity-related data names, there are many different ways of describing the different potential x-coordinates:

• _pd_proc.intensity_net
  • _pd_proc.intensity_net contains intensity values for the processed diffractogram for each data point (see _pdproc.2theta, _pd_proc.wavelength etc.)
• _pd_meas.intensity_total
  • Intensity measurements at the measurement point (see the definition of _pdmeas.2theta*).
• _pd_calc.intensity_total
  • Intensity values for a computed diffractogram at each angle setting.

There should be a unified way to describe the phenonomen of "the independent variable against which you collected your data" which is angle/time/length agnostic.

[jamesrhester]

The formal structure at the moment is that there is a list of points that simply have identifiers. These points belong to the PD_DATA category. Then each of PD_MEAS, PD_PROC and PD_CALC take some subset of these points to tabulate whatever it is they want to tabulate. So it is hard to improve on the wording above: in PD_PROC the two theta value is associated with a data point and may be different to that seen in PD_MEAS so you wouldn't call it an angle setting. In PD_MEAS you might not be talking about a true 2 theta value so best to say "measurement point". In PD_CALC you are definitely calculating for a true angular value. And PD_CALC might be a simulation rather than a fit, I guess.

A unified description would be "for the given data point" but that doesn't convey the different meanings as well, I think.

Suggestions for improvement?

[rowlesmr]

My main point is that in, for instance, _pd_calc.intensity_total, you're not always giving "Intensity values for a computed diffractogram at each angle setting.", it could at each time-of-flight, d-spacing, millimetre, keV; any of the given potential x-coordinates.

Actually, "measurement point" is probably the best, but may not work for pd_calc, if its a purely calculated pattern.

[jamesrhester]

So _pd_calc.intensity_total shouldn't be "angle setting" but simply "at the given data points". It sounds like the other two can't really be improved.

[rowlesmr]

Dealt with by #49