- suppres sending redundant stat mark messages from MockElm
- emit a "reset" state mark when an actual reset happens
- let the PresentationStateManager discard recorded special state
when receiving a "reset" mark for a given element
I assumed that, since GenNode is composed of copyable and
assignable types, the standard implementation will do.
But I overlooked the run time type check on the opaque
payload type within lib::Variant. When a type mismatch
is detected, the default implementation has already
assigned and thus altered the IDs.
So we need to roll our own implementation, and to add
insult to injury, we can't use the copy-and-swap idiom either.
This is actually a STL library feature, and was added precisely
for the reason encountered here: if we want logarithmic search,
we'll have to construct a new GenNode object, just to have something
for the set to invoke the comparison operator.
C++14 introduced the convention that the Comparator of the set
may define a marker type `is_transparent` alongside with a generic
comparison operator. But, as is obvious from the source code of
our GNU Standard library implementation, our std::set has no such
overload to make use of that feature
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/set/findhttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/20317413/what-are-transparent-comparators
The only good thing is that, just 10 minutes ago, I felt like
a complete moron because I'm writing a unit test for such a simple
storage class. ;-)
...and I made the decision *not* to consider any kind of
generic properties for now. YAGNI.
UI coding is notorious spaghetti code.
No point in fighting that, it is just the way it is,
because somewhere you're bound to get concrete, hands-on.
right now, what we actually need here is just some integer,
so the GenNode payload is typed to int (or just to anything
different than a Record, because the Record signals that
we intend to bind, not to invoke the command)
the values.child() call would also do a bounds check,
but only to rise a error::Invalid "index out of bounds".
So now we generate a clear message to indicate that
actually a runtime-checked type mismatch caused this problem
the functionality as such is already covered,
but it seems important enough to warrant a dedicated test.
incidentally, Duration still lacked a default ctor.
Time values are default constructible, yet immutable.
incidentally, this uncovered yet another unwanted narrowing conversion,
namely from double via gavl_time_t to TimeValue or alternatively
from double via FSecs (= rational<long>) to Duration.
As in all the previos cases, actually the compiler is to blame,
and GCC-5 is known to get that one right, i.e. let the SFINAE fail
instead of passing it with a "narrowing conversion" warning.
Note: the real test for command binding with immutable types
can be found in BusTerm_test
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.
...probably just an omission. TimeValue and Time are
also default constructible, and this makes sense, semantically.
Please note that Time values are *immutable* though.
Only TimeVar can be reassigned. This is so by design
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. ;-)
recently, I've introduced this ability in our toString template.
as it turned out, the bool type was not selected by our
boost::format frontend for special treatment, thus showing
just the fallback «bool»
...when the Test-Nexus processes a command binding message.
In the real system of course we do not want to log every bind message.
The challenge here is the fact that command binding as such
is opaque, and the types of the data within the bind message
are opaque as well. Finally I settled on the compromise
to log them as strings, but only the DataCap part;
most value types applicable within GenNode
have a string representation to match.
the rationale is that I deliberately do not want to provide
a mechanism to iterate "over all contents in stringified form".
Because this could be seen as an invitation to process GenNode-
datastructures in an imperative way. Please recall we do not
want that. Users shall either *match* contents (using a visitor),
or they are required to know the type of the contents beforehand.
Both cases favour structural and type based programming over
dynamic run-time based inspection of contents
The actual task prompting me to add this iteration mechanism
is that I want to build a diagnostic, which allows to verify
that a binding message was sent over the bus with some
specific parameter values.
...also for the existing variant, which packages an
arbitrary number of arguments in stringified form
into a given container type. Moreover, the new
form of stringify allows to write util::join
in a clearer way, eliminating the lambda.
...since, semantically, the template param INT is expected to be
"number like", which implies to base the "in range" notion
on a comparison concept (e.g. we might use floating point numbers)
...this was clearly wrong; it went unnoticed just
because the linker cleans up duplicates of
template instantiations. (I'd expect GCC-5
to spot such errors)
very similar to boost::irange, but without heavyweight boost
includes, and moreover based on our Lumiera Forward Iterator concept
Such a inline-range construct makes writing simple tests easy
based on the new generic tuple builder, we're now able to
add a new binding function into the command implementation
machinery, alongside the existing one. As it stands, the
latter will be used rather by unit tests, while the new
access path is what will be actually taken within
the application, when receiving argument binding
messages dispatched via the UI-Bus.
since this is a quick-n-dirty workariound, until we're using GCC-5,
I'll err for the simple and safe side and disallow any conversion
from LuidH do some algebraic data type. The problem arises,
sincd LuidH defines a conversion to size_t, which depends
on the platform. So, without checking the actual NumericLimits,
there is no way we can allow a conversion to size_t in a
hard wired way, while disallowing a narrowing conversion
to 32bit unsigned int on 64bit platforms.
And in the end, we don't want conversions from LUID to
numeric values to happen automatically anyway. But of
course we *do* want automatic promotion from a LuidH
to a PlacementRef...
...to avoid warnings when deriving a publicly visible type
from that interface. Newer GCC and CLang versions emit
warnings when details from an anonymous implementation
namespace will leak into type signatures visible outside
the translation unit. In this case here, it's the VTable.
because this element picking mechanism for tuples
looks like an instance of something generic.
At least I've written almost the same just some days ago
for the revised version of function-closure, where the
task was to replace a stretch of type arguments in
a given tuple type with a stretch of placeholder types
and then to build a modified ctor, which just fills
in the remaining arguments, while default constructing
the placeholder types. And if we look into the GNU
implementation of std::bind, they're using a similar
concept (with the difference that they're building
a functor object, where we use a type converter)
This refactoring also integrates some generally useful
bits into our standard metaprogramming helper collection
this was a classical example of a muddled and messed-up design,
driven just by the fact that I wanted to "spare" some functions,
with the net effect of writing more functions, plus a proxy class
plus create a lot of confusion for the reader.
This was easy to resolve though, once I resorted to the
general adivice to make public interface methods final,
make the extension ponts protected and never
to chain two extension points
