Should forces just be listeners?

[mbostock]

It seems weird to just piggyback on dispatch.on:

var simulation = d3.forceSimulation(nodes)
    .on("beforetick.charge", d3.forceManyBody(nodes))
    .on("beforetick.link", d3.forceLink(nodes, links))
    .on("beforetick.position", d3.forcePosition(nodes).position([width / 2, height / 2]))
    .on("tick", draw);

Maybe the simulation should track named forces, allowing us to develop a more specific interface for forces?

var simulation = d3.forceSimulation(nodes)
    .force("charge", d3.forceManyBody(nodes))
    .force("link", d3.forceLink(nodes, links))
    .force("position", d3.forcePosition(nodes).position([width / 2, height / 2]))
    .on("tick", draw);

Or, if per #8 forces inherit nodes from the simulation:

var simulation = d3.forceSimulation(nodes)
    .force("charge", d3.forceManyBody)
    .force("link", d3.forceLink(links))
    .force("position", d3.forcePosition.position([width / 2, height / 2]))
    .on("tick", draw);

And if per #7 forces are mutable:

var simulation = d3.forceSimulation(nodes)
    .force("charge", d3.forceManyBody())
    .force("link", d3.forceLink(links))
    .force("position", d3.forcePosition().position([width / 2, height / 2]))
    .on("tick", draw);

Related: it’s a little annoying to give each force a name.