Ok, that sounds fine. There still might be some use in having an interface with the halo profiler. If you're calculating virial masses for halos, but only concerned with those above some minimum mass, this might be a nice way of skipping halos that we know will be below the threshold virial mass. Currently, the default method in the code is to continue to profile halos down to 0.1 of the mass calculated by the halo finder. That tends to be overkill, but I set it low to make sure not to miss any halos. However, this calculation would get us much closer to knowing the total virial mass before-hand and might be a finer filter than what we've been using. Once you have it in there, I'll check it out to see if there's a way the halo profiler can take advantage of it.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Stephen Skory firstname.lastname@example.org:
Out of curiosity, can you provide some detail on how your script works?
Is it dong something completely different from the halo profiler? If that's true, then it's probably worth adding.
Now that I think about it, my function make more sense going inside of HaloFinding. I basically used the same logic as in HaloProfiler. But because it depends on knowing the exact population of particles in each halo, it should be attached there, rather than in HaloProfiler.
Yt-dev mailing list Ytemail@example.com http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org