- remove obsolete configuration settings
- walk through all settings according to the documentation
https://www.doxygen.nl/manual/config.html
- now try to use the new feature to rely on Clang for C++ parsing
- walk through the doxygen-warnings.txt and fix some obvious misspellings
and structural problems in the documentation comments.
With Debian-Trixie, we are now using Doxygen 1.9.8 —
which produces massively better results in various fine points.
However, there are still problems with automatic cross links,
especially from implementation to the corresponding test classes.
seems that I've played too much with »undefined behaviour« in this test;
basically we can not assume ''any'' specific placement of local variables
in a stack frame....
In this test, what I wanted to demonstrate is that the overflow-block can reside
just »anywhere«, and that HeteraoData is just a light-weight front-End and accessor.
However, I can just demonstrate that without totally ''undefined behaviour;''
placement-new can be used to force the storage at a specific location (in the UninitialiesdStorage);
continue to access and use that data after leaving the nested scope is still
kind-of borderline, yet demonstrates that the data itself is just residing in a storage block...
NodeBase_test demonstrates the building blocks of a Render Node,
and verifies low-level mechanics of those building blocks, which
can be quite technical. At the top of this test however are some
very basic interactions, which serve as an introduction.
__Remark__: renamed the low-level technical dispatch-access
for the parameter-accessors in `TurnoutSystem` to be more obvious,
and added comment (I was confused myself how to use them properly)
So this is a design sketch how a `ParamBuildSpec` descriptor could be created,
which in turn would provide the foundation to implement a ''Parameter Weaving Pattern...''
__Note__: since this is an extension for advanced usage, yet relies on a storage layout
defined to allow for extensions like this use case here, the anchor type is now defined
to reside in the `TurnoutSystem` in the form of a ''standard parameter block''.
Those standard invocation parameters are fixed and thus can be hard coded.
It seemed like we're doomed...
Yet we barely escaped our horrid fate, because the C++ structured bindings happen to look also for get<i> member functions!
Any other solution involving a free function `get<i>(h)` would not work, since the `std::tuple` used as base class would inevitably drag in std::get via ADL
Obviously, the other remedy would be to turn the `StorageFrame` into a member; yet doing so is not desirable, as makes the actual storage layout more obscure (and also more brittle)
Actually it is the implementation of `std::get` from our STL implementation
which causes the problems; our new custom implementation works as intended an
would also be picked by the compiler's overload resolution. But unfortunately,
the bounds checking assertion built into std::tuple_element<I,T> triggers
immediately when instantiated with out-of-bounds argument, which happens
during the preparation of overload resolution, even while the compiler
would pick another implementation in the following routine.
So we're out of luck and need to find a workaround...
Why is our specialisation of `std::get` not picked up by the compiler?
* it must somehow be related to the fact that `std::tuple` itself is a base class of lib::HeteroData
* if we remove this inheritance relation, our specialisation is used by the compiler and works as intended
* however, this strange behaviour can not be reproduced in a simple synthetic setup
It must be some further subtlety which marks the tuple case as preferrable
Seems like low hanging fruit and would especially allow to use
those storage blocks with ''structural bindings''
Providing the necessary specialisations for `std::get` however turns out to be difficult;
the compiler insists on picking the direct tuple specialisation, since std::tuple is a
protected base class; yet still surprising -- I was under the impression
that the direct overload should be the closest match
This basically solves this implementation challenge:
It was possible to construct a ''compile-time type-safe'' overlay,
while using force-casts ''without any metadata'' at runtime.
Obviously this is a dangerous setup, but ''should be resonably safe'' when used within the defined scheme...
* now yields an instance of the full `HeteroData<X,X,Z>` template
* work around problems with std::tuple_element_t for derived classes
Can now default-create and direct-init a front-End data block,
access and modify its elements — and the API looks ok-ish for me
Decision to use the generic case as short-hand for the first data block,
and thus ''hide the more technical Loki-List specialisations''
With that, I'm finally able to write the first test case...
...as part of the rendering process, executed on top of the
low-level-model (Render Node network) as conceived thus far.
Parameter handling could be ''encoded'' into render nodes altogether,
or, at the other extreme, an explicit parameter handling could be specified
as part of the Render Node execution. As both extremes will lead to some
unfavourable consequences, I am aiming at a middle ground: largely, the
''automation computation'' will be encoded and hidden within the network,
implying that this topic remains to be addressed as part of defining
the Builder semantics and implementation. Yet in part the required
processing structure can be foreseen at an abstract level, and thus
the essential primitive operations are specified explicitly as part
of the Render Node definition. Notably the ''standard Weaving Pattern''
will include a ''parameter tuple'' into each `FeedManifold` and require
a binding function, which accepts this tuple as first argument.
Moreover — at implementation level, a library facility must be provided
to support handling of ''arbitrary heterogeneous data values'' embedded
directly into stack frame memory, together with a type-safe compile-time
overlay, which allows the builder to embed specific ''accessor handles''
into functor bindings, even while the actual storage location is not
yet known at that time (obviously, as being located on the stack).
__Note__: a recurring topic is how to return descriptor objects from builder functions; for this purpose, I am adjusting the semantics of `lib/nocopy.hpp` to be more specific...
