Open thelmuth opened 9 years ago
BTW, my vote is to just rename them, and ignore the fact that they're also used in some code stack instructions to limit Push code size.
I think my vote will be to use new names for the functions for which the old names are inappropriate, but keep the old names for the functions for which they are still appropriate. Why trade one kind of misnaming for another? But I haven't yet looked into the details so I'm not sure.
On Apr 19, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Tom Helmuth notifications@github.com wrote:
BTW, my vote is to just rename them, and ignore the fact that they're also used in some code stack instructions to limit Push code size.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/lspector/Clojush/issues/130#issuecomment-94292082.
Lee Spector, Professor of Computer Science Director, Institute for Computational Intelligence Cognitive Science, Hampshire College 893 West Street, Amherst, MA 01002-3359 lspector@hampshire.edu, http://hampshire.edu/lspector/ Phone: 413-559-5352, Fax: 413-559-5438
This is just a test to see if this appears in Slack.
This issue was fixed a bit ago.
I just noticed one artifact from moving to Plush genomes that isn't really cleaned up properly: the push-gp args
:max-points
and:max-points-in-initial-program
use the language of "points", which refers to sizes of Push programs, not Plush genomes. Yet they are used to determine the max sizes of Plush genomes during initialization and genetic operators.We could simply make it more clear by calling them
:max-genome-size
and:max-genome-size-in-initial-program
. But, that isn't a perfect solution, since:max-points
is used in other points to limit sizes of Push code. In particular, it is used incode
stack instructions to ensure that code there doesn't grow exponentially.I guess we could split these into two separate arguments, but that seems inelegant. Any other ideas? Should we just leave it the way it is, or just rename it?