lumiera_/src/lib/diff/tree-mutator.hpp

252 lines
8 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

/*
TREE-MUTATOR.hpp - flexible binding to map generic tree changing operations
Copyright (C) Lumiera.org
2015, Hermann Vosseler <Ichthyostega@web.de>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
the License, or (at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
*/
/** @file tree-mutator.hpp
** Customisable intermediary to abstract generic tree mutation operations.
** This is the foundation for generic treatment of tree altering operations,
** and especially the handling of changes (diff) to hierarchical data structures.
** The goal is to represent a standard set of conceptual operations working on
** arbitrary data structures, without the need for these data structures to
** comply to any interface or base type. Rather, we allow each instance to
** define binding closures, which allows to tap into arbitrary internal data
** representation, without any need of disclosure. The only assumption is
** that the data to be treated is \em hierarchical and \em object-like,
** i.e. it has (named) attributes and it may have a collection of children.
** If necessary, typing constraints can be integrated through symbolic
** representation of types as chained identifiers. (path dependent types).
**
** The interface implemented by the TreeMutator is shaped such as to support
** the primitives of Lumiera's tree \link diff-language.hpp diff handling language. \endlink
** By default, each of these primitives is implemented as a \c NOP -- but each operation
** can be replaced by a binding closure, which allows to invoke arbitrary code in the
** context of the given object's implementation internals.
**
** ## Builder/Adapter concept
** TreeMutator is both an interface and a set of building blocks.
** On concrete usage, the (private, non disclosed) target data structure is assumed
** to _build a subclass of TreeMutator._ To this end, the TreeMutator is complemented
** by a builder API. Each call on this builder -- typically providing some closure --
** will add yet another decorating layer on top of the basic TreeMutator (recall all
** the "mutation primitives" are implemented NOP within the base class). So the actual
** TreeMutator will be structured like an onion, where each layer cares for the sole
** concrete aspect it was tied for by the supplied closure. For example, there might
** be a decorator to handle setting of a "foobar" attribute. Thus, when the diff
** dictates to mutate "foobar", the corresponding closure will be invoked.
**
** \par test dummy target
** There is a special adapter binding to support writing unit tests. The corresponding
** API is only declared (forward) by default. The TestMutationTarget is a helper class,
** which can be attached through this binding and allows a unit test fixture to record
** and verify all the mutation operations encountered.
**
** @see tree-mutator-test.cpp
** @see DiffDetector
**
*/
#ifndef LIB_DIFF_TREE_MUTATOR_H
#define LIB_DIFF_TREE_MUTATOR_H
#include "lib/error.hpp"
#include "lib/symbol.hpp"
#include "lib/diff/gen-node.hpp"
//#include "lib/util.hpp"
//#include "lib/format-string.hpp"
#include <functional>
#include <string>
//#include <vector>
//#include <map>
namespace lib {
namespace diff{
namespace error = lumiera::error;
//using util::_Fmt;
using lib::Literal;
using std::function;
using std::string;
class TestMutationTarget; // for unit testing
namespace {
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
template<class PAR>
struct Builder;
using ID = Literal;
using Attribute = DataCap;
}
/**
* Customisable intermediary to abstract mutating operations
* on arbitrary, hierarchical object-like data.
* The TreeMutator exposes two distinct interfaces
* - the \em operation API -- similar to what a container exposes --
* is the entirety of abstract operations that can be done to the
* subsumed, tree like target structure
* - the \em binding API allows to link some or all of these generic
* activities to concrete manipulations known within target scope.
*/
class TreeMutator
{
public:
/* ==== operation API ==== */
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
virtual void
injectNew (GenNode const& n)
{
UNIMPLEMENTED("establish new child node at current position");
}
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
virtual void
deleteChild (ID id)
{
UNIMPLEMENTED("destroy child node at current position");
}
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
virtual void
findChild (ID id)
{
UNIMPLEMENTED("look ahead, find and retrieve denoted child to be relocated at current position");
}
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
virtual TreeMutator&
mutateChild (ID id)
{
UNIMPLEMENTED("expose a recursive TreeMutator to transform the denoted child");
}
virtual void setAttribute (ID, Attribute&) { /* do nothing by default */ }
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
/**
* start building a custom adapted tree mutator,
* where the operations are tied by closures or
* wrappers into the current implementation context.
*/
static Builder<TreeMutator> build();
};
namespace { // Mutator-Builder decorator components...
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
/**
* Type rebinding helper to pick up the actual argument type.
* Works both for functors and for lambda expressions
* @remarks Solution proposed 10/2011 by \link http://stackoverflow.com/users/224671/kennytm user "kennytm" \endlink
* in this \link http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7943525/is-it-possible-to-figure-out-the-parameter-type-and-return-type-of-a-lambda/7943765#7943765
* answer on stackoverflow \endlink
*/
template<typename FUN>
struct _ClosureType
: _ClosureType<decltype(&FUN::operator())>
{ };
template<class C, class RET, class ARG>
struct _ClosureType<RET (C::*)(ARG) const>
{
typedef ARG ArgType;
typedef RET ReturnType;
};
template<class PAR, class CLO>
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
struct ChangeOperation
: PAR
{
ID attribID_;
CLO change_;
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
virtual void
setAttribute (ID id, Attribute& newValue)
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
{
using ValueType = typename _ClosureType<CLO>::ArgType;
if (id == attribID_)
change_(newValue.get<ValueType>());
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
else // delegate to other closures (Decorator-style)
PAR::setAttribute(id, newValue);
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
}
ChangeOperation(ID id, CLO clo, PAR const& chain)
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
: PAR(chain)
, attribID_(id)
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
, change_(clo)
{ }
};
template<class PAR>
struct TestWireTap;
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
template<class PAR>
struct Builder
: PAR
{
Builder(PAR par)
: PAR(par)
{ }
template<class CLO>
using Change = ChangeOperation<PAR,CLO>;
using WireTap = TestWireTap<PAR>;
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
/* ==== binding API ==== */
template<typename CLO>
Builder<Change<CLO>>
change (Literal attributeID, CLO closure)
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
{
return Change<CLO> (attributeID, closure, *this);
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
}
Builder<WireTap>
attachDummy (TestMutationTarget& dummy);
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
};
}//(END) Mutator-Builder decorator components...
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
Builder<TreeMutator>
TreeMutator::build ()
{
return TreeMutator();
settle on a concrete implementation approach based on inheritance chain After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures, but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain. While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures, in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the given closures. Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation is not necessary and inline it away. NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work. And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect. The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight. Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of "Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!) implementation class for each participating setup, which takes up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not publickly exposed) scope.
2015-04-05 18:26:49 +02:00
}
}} // namespace lib::diff
#endif /*LIB_DIFF_TREE_MUTATOR_H*/