Seth R. Johnson

That's since been merged into vecgeom 2 so I'll close this.

@mrguilima Could you make this your highest priority?

@hhollenb Can you post the errors? The only ones I'm seeing in the CI (about missing operators) is due to not including `corecel/math/ArrayOperators.hh` in `surface/detail/InitBoundaryExecutor.hh`.

Aha, I see what's happening... the error is when building with NVCC, and there's a `celeritas::sincos` that shadows the builtin nvidia `sincos` 🤔 we need to get the std/global/nvidia namespace...

Yep I do remember that @amandalund . Created https://github.com/celeritas-project/celeritas/issues/1950 (which also explains why @hhollenb 's latest build is failing the CPU build...)

@hhollenb @amandalund Notes from today, which should be incorporated into documentation once stable: # Physics surface crossing state Logical directions: - traversal direction: forward and reverse, based on pre ->...

For comparison, here's a typical EM interactor (bethe-heitler): In the EM case, there's a clean break between the procedural components and functional: the executor doesn't return an interactor, it *executes*...

In our G4 physics list setup options, `apply_cuts` is off by default, just like with G4 option 0 and 2 (option 1 has apply_cuts=true). So we're *not* killing the secondaries...

I think it would be more consistent to have secondary production cuts be the same as the tracking cut of that particle, and to always apply cuts, and to eliminate...

I've probably forgotten 🤔 but I suppose I don't intuitively understand why you would want to track a "successfully emitted" secondary electron of 20 keV while preventing emission of most...