Re: [Repast-developer] custom charts question + properties

[Laszlo G. <gu...@la...>]

Hi,

At 11:49 AM 11/12/2002 -0500, Nick Collier wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 11:47, Thomas R. Howe wrote:
> > My feeling is that agentIterator is a very good idea.  First it cleans
> > up some of the work with the agent list.  Makes it feel a bit more like
> > the agents are really part of the model.  I've always felt like it was a
> > little weird that there was no real mention of the agents in the model
> > definition.  I'm trying to come up with a situation where this would be
> > a problem, I haven't yet, but we'll see :). Adding a stock
> > implementation of agentIterator wouldn't be much of a problem either.

 From a broader perspective, I can imagine the agentIterator() to be really
useful. However, I must be careful here as I might see too much 'into'
the proposal. I mean, if it's only a hasMoreAgents(), getNextAgent(),
getAgentIterator() triplet, then I am not sure if it's worth the effort.
You'd still need to organize loops around it and it's not much easier than
via Iterator i = agentList.iterator();.

However, if it's a way to have 'vectorized' operations (executed on all
agents), then I am pretty much for it. I know, however, that this raises a
number of problems and work, so don't take it as another crazy 'request'
from me...! :-)


> > Seems like having the extra interfaces (not unlike the customProbeable
> > interface, I presume), would solve the problems you discuss, but I kind
> > of wonder if we have gained anything at that point.  The user still has
> > to think through in advance what he wants to chart, although, he doesn't
> > need to write the Sequences which is nice. Maybe I'm not thinking of the
> > same kinds of interfaces that you are.
>
>I agree. I'm not seeing what we've gained. But this maybe because I'm
>not thinking through the Interfaces correctly.

OK, guys. I'll wait for you to comment on my previous ranting. You both
really sound as it was hard/impossible to access data members for some
reason. So, it must be true...

Take care!

Gulya