this seems like an obvious functionality and basically harmless,
since commands are designed to be inherently stateful, which is reflected
in all the internal storage holders to expos an assignment operator
(even while the actual implementation is based on placement new instead
of assigning values into the storage, and thus even supports immutable
values). The only possible ramification is that argument values must
be default constructible
Completely removed the nested hierarchy, where
the top-level implementation forwarded to yet another
sub-implementation of the same interface. Rather, this
sub-implementation (OpClosure) is now a mere implementation
detail class without VTable, and without half-baked
re-implementation of the CmdClosure interface. And the
state-switch from unbound to bound arguments is now
implemented as a plain-flat boolean flag, instead of
hiding it in the VTable.
To make this possible, without having to rewrite lots of
tests, I've created a clone of StorageHolder as a
"proof-of-concept" dummy implementation, for the sole
purpose of writing test fixtures. This one behaves
similar to the real-world thing, but cares only
for closing the command operation and omits all
the gory details of memento capturing and undo.
Seems this was part of the confusion when looking at
the inheritance graph: Names where almost reversed
to the meaning. the ArgumentHolder was *not* the
argument holder, but the top level closure. And
the class "Closure" was not "the" Closure, but
just the argument holder. ;-)
2016-02-06 16:29:06 +01:00
Renamed from src/proc/control/command-argument-holder.hpp (Browse further)
