Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

clear-links fails on create-standalone #118

Closed
TheBizzle opened this issue Nov 24, 2014 · 5 comments
Closed

clear-links fails on create-standalone #118

TheBizzle opened this issue Nov 24, 2014 · 5 comments

Comments

@TheBizzle
Copy link
Member

From @chrisvfritz on November 24, 2014 17:7

Using clear-links in a model results in the following error:

unknown primitive: org.nlogo.prim.etc._clearlinks

I would say this is low priority, as clear-links can simply be replaced with ask links [die] for a quick fix, but it may be useful to note the issue and its fix somewhere in the documentation until clear-links is implemented.

Copied from original issue: NetLogo/Galapagos#173

@TheBizzle
Copy link
Member Author

Duplicate of #119.

@chrisvfritz
Copy link

Thanks @TheBizzle. Is this the correct repository to post to for all unknown primitive errors?

@TheBizzle
Copy link
Member Author

This is something that's debatable, but I'd say so. The problem (i.e. that a primitive is unimplemented) lives in Tortoise. The symptom of it is experienced in Galapagos.

@chrisvfritz
Copy link

Thanks. I see the issue that's been referenced is simply documenting that Many, many primitives are not yet implemented. Is it still useful to keep posting issues for these errors? Or would commenting on that meta issue be useful?

@TheBizzle
Copy link
Member Author

If the only thing to report is that a primitive isn't implemented, I'd rather an issue weren't opened on that. I'm fine with what you've been doing, though, of opening tickets to say "this primitive is missing and here's how to work around that". That makes sense to me as something worth documenting. Regarding commenting on #119, I think opening a separate issue for each primitive workaround you want to mention is the better option.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants