Thanks!

But what if you provide Steppables at various times as they show up, and then they all get stepped?  That's where shuffling is helpful -- it breaks the deterministic nature of the heap submission algorithm.  That's all.

So keep it. :)
And write in somewhere that setShuffling improves the disorder, since you can't ensure the heap is sorted...

Maíra

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Uh oh, AFTER my email you were wondering?  :-)

Basically: the schedule works by advancing to the timestep of the minimally-scheduled Steppable.  It then removes all the Steppables which are scheduled at that timestep.  Then it sorts them by their "ordering", and breaks ties by shuffling randomly.  Then it goes through all those Steppables, in the resultant order, and step()s them one by one.

So what's the difference between having the Schedule shuffle elements randomly and just using a RandomSequence?  Simply this: in a RandomSequence you submit all the Steppables at one time to the Schedule, all in one array.  But what if you provide Steppables at various times as they show up, and then they all get stepped?  That's where shuffling is helpful -- it breaks the deterministic nature of the heap submission algorithm.  That's all.

Sean


On Oct 14, 2009, at 8:22 PM, Maíra Athanázio Gatti wrote:

Hi Sean,

I have never used setShuffling and after your email I was wondering what is the difference between it and a RamdonSequence.

Maíra

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I added setShuffling because I was asked on this list to enable a way for elements entered for the same timestep to be removed from the Schedule in a predictable order (that is, no shuffling of those elements).  However while the order is *predictable* it is by no means *expected* -- since the Schedule uses a binary heap underneath, it is *not* the case that elements will be stepped in the order in which they were inserted in the Schedule in the first place (though it is *sometimes* the case).  Because of the high possibility for misunderstanding, and the very low value (I think) in having the feature, I'm thinking of deleting setShuffling entirely and requiring that objects be shuffled.

Any opinions?

Sean