Changeset 1247 for cpp/frams/genetics/f4/f4_oper.cpp

Timestamp:

05/21/23 22:52:02 (18 months ago)

Author:

Maciej Komosinski

Message:

Cosmetic

File:

• cpp/frams/genetics/f4/f4_oper.cpp (modified) (1 diff)

cpp/frams/genetics/f4/f4_oper.cpp

@@ -15 +15 @@
 //
 // TODO the behavior of neuron input indexes during mutation seems badly implemented (see also TREAT_BAD_CONNECTIONS_AS_INVALID_GENO). Are they kept properly maintained when nodes are added and removed? This could be done well because during mutation we operate on the tree structure with cross-references between nodes (so they should not be affected by local changes in the tree), and then convert the tree back to string. Yet, the f4_Node.conn_from is an integer and these fields in nodes do not seem to be maintained on tree node adding/removal... change these integer offsets to references to node objects? But actually, do the offsets that constitute relative connection references concern the f4_Node tree structure (and all these sophisticated calculations of offsets during mutation are useful) or rather they concern the f4_Cells development? verify all situations in f4_Cell::oneStep(), case '['.
-// TODO in mutation, adding the '#' gene does not seem to be effective. The gene is added and genotypes are valid, but hardly ever #n is effective, i.e., it hardly ever multiplicates body or brain parts... investigate!
+// TODO in mutation, adding the '#' gene does not seem to be effective. The gene is added and genotypes are valid, but hardly ever #n is effective, i.e., it hardly ever multiplicates body or brain parts... investigate! And maybe, during repair or mutations, simplify/remove ineffective #N genes, if there is no chance/hardly any chance that they will be turned effective after future mutation (or crossover)
 // TODO add support for properties of (any class of) neurons - not just sigmoid/force/intertia (':' syntax) for N
 // TODO add mapping genotype character ranges for neural [connections]
-// TODO The f0 genotypes for /*4*/<<RX>X>X> and RX(X,X) are identical, but if you replace R with Q or C, there are small differences - check why and perhaps unify?
+// TODO The f0 genotypes for /*4*/<<RX>X>X> and RX(X,X) are identical, but if you replace R with Q or C, there are small differences (they were present both before and after the Q,C change in f1 in 2023-05) - check why and perhaps unify?
 // TODO F4_SIMPLIFY_MODIFIERS in f4_general.cpp: currently it works while parsing (which is a bit "cheating": we get a phenotype that is a processed version of the genotype, thus some changes in modifiers in the genotype have no effect on its phenotype). Another (likely better) option, instead of simplifying while parsing, would be during mutations (like it is done in f1): when mutations add/modify/remove a modifier node, they could "clean" the tree by simplifying modifiers on the same subpath just as GenoOperators::simplifiedModifiers() does. This way, simplifying would be only performed when we actually modify a part of a genotype, not each time we interpret it, and there would be no hidden mechanism: all visible genes would have an expected effect on the phenotype.