Adapt code base to pyddww style?

[BSieglin]

Should kk have the same internal structure as dd.py from pyddww. E.g. no __variables?
How should we proceed with the naming? e.g. getMagneticField?

Currently the code uses tabs as indent. Should we change to 4 space indents like pyddww?

This is just a issue for general discussion.

[bpwned]

As discussed on the phone, I think we should apply the dd style completely. The current version is just the latest I had on my disk, no part of the style really needs to be preserved. So, let's rename the functions and use 4 spaces.

[tardini]

I agree, 4 spaces and dd-like function names. However, if we move away from the kk-names (and we should!), we have to write some html documentation. doc-strings in my opinion are not enough, because it is not about "what is this detMagneticField doing?" but rather "How do I call an equivalent of kkrhopto?", at least for those who have ever included kk-calls in their routines.

[bpwned]

That's a good idea. We might be able to automate this because we do use the kkrhop... functions ourselves, i.e. we just have make a 'map' of where which kk-function is used. I.e. we can automatically look up in kk.py that kkrzbrzt is used in getMagneticField and simply write out a kind of index of all kk functions that way.