Boltzmann wealth model: Use the new Mesa 2.2 API & some refactors #79
Conversation
rht
commented
Jan 7, 2024
•
rht
commented
- Depends on refactor: Remove dependence on model.schedule, add clock to Model mesa#1942 to be merged.
rht
changed the title
rht
changed the title
|
This is ready for review. |
| if len(cellmates) > 0: | ||
| other = self.random.choice(cellmates) | ||
| other.wealth += 1 | ||
| self.wealth -= 1 | ||
|
|
||
| def step(self): | ||
| self.move() | ||
| if self.wealth > 0: | ||
| self.give_money() | ||
| self.give_money() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I liked the old check here better, it made it explicit that only money was given when there was any to give.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about maybe_give_money?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah renaming the function would also work (consider_giving_money maybe), but for explicitness I liked the old structure better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My reasoning is different. The check gives a constraint to the give_money method that prevents negative wealth.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am just curious why you said the name choice is based on Haskells Maybe monad. If it's just about maybe doing something, then the dictionary definition of maybe would suffice. What am I missing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have already said this
If you are concerned about the connotation with the monad, then there is this usage in Golang.
It's just my first encounter on the usage of the term "maybe" in naming in the context of programming.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And I have already said that I am not concerned but just curious 😅
I have no idea what you want to tell me, but we should probably just leave this conversation. It's not important.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also think the older version was better, because more explicit.
I agree. It's more explicit and more readable. These are user targeted examples, that show behavior. Not some mission critical application. Let's leave it the old way.
rht
force-pushed
the
agentset
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d55d144
to
6256ce4
Compare
|
The tests are failing is this because the tests are now wrong? (Apologies for the delay) |
|
Fixed in projectmesa/mesa#2050. |
|
Looks good to go! |
|
I agree, this can be merged. |
|
If this is merged, anyone trying to run the example from the latest stable release will encounter an error. |
