I believe one of the problems with deterministic scheduling is that
you may start seeing all sorts of artifacts.
On Aug 25, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Michael Lees wrote:
> I was curious as to why shuffling of events with the same time-step
> isn't optional. From reading the Schedule code, the sub steps with
> the same time-step (and same ordering) are extracted into a bag and
> randomised using the shuffle method.
> In some situations, particularly debugging it might be preferable
> to retain the order of sub steps from step to step, or even retain
> the order in which events were scheduled.
> Would it be possible to just add a flag which is set to indicate if
> the schedule should be randomised or not, or does something else
> rely on the assumption of random ordering.
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> may still contain software viruses, which could damage your
> computer system:
> you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications
> with the
> University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK