this boils down to the two alternatives
- manipulate the target data structure
- build an altered copy
since our goal is to handle large tree structures efficiently,
the decision was cast in favour of data manipulation
so basically it's time to explicate the way
our diff language will actually be written.
Similar to the list diff case, it's a linear sequence
of verb tokens, but in this case, the payload value
in each token is a GenNode. This is the very reason
why GenNode was conceived as value object with an
opaque DataCap payload
while it's still not really clear how we'll use this helper
and if we need it at all -- some weeks ago I changed its
semantics to be strictly based on the delta to a reference level.
Now this means, we could go below level zero, but this doesn't
make any sense in the context of navigating a tree. Actually,
our test case triggered this situation, which caused the
reference level to wrap around, since it is stored in an
unsigned variable.
Thus I'll add a precondition to keep the level positive,
and I'll change the test to comply.
Initially I've deliberately omitted those, to nudge towards
using time quantisation and TCode formatting for any external
representation of time values.
While this recommendation is still valid, the overloaded
string conversion turns out to be helpful for unit testing
and diagnostics in compound data structures.
See Record<GenNode>
initially the intention was to include a "bracketing construct"
into the values returned by the iterator. After considering
the various implementation and representation approaches,
it seems more appropriate just to expose a measure for the
depth-in-tree through the iterator itself, leaving any concerns
about navigation and structure reconstruction to the usage site.
As rationale we consider the full tree reconstruction as a very
specialised use case, and as such the normal "just iteration" usage
should not pay for this in terms of iterator size and implementation
complexity. Once a "level" measure is exposed, the usage site
can do precisely the same, with the help of the
HierarchyOrientationIndicator.
Whooa!
Templates are powerful.
programming this way is really fun.
under the assumption that the parts are logical,
all conceivable combinations of theses parts are bound to be correct
it passes compilation, but the test still fails, since
I've changed the expected semantics of the iteration,
in the light of the insights I've gained during
re-investigation of the IterExplorer.
What I now actually intend is rather to embed a
HierarchyOrientationIndicator into the iterator,
instead of returning a special "bracket" marker
reference to indicate return from a nested scope.
Only a Record payload constitutes a nested scope.
For all other (primitive) values, we return an empty iterator.
When used within ScopeExplorer, this implementation will just
lead to exposing any simple value once, while delving into
iteration of nested scopes
The only substantial change (besides compilation fixes) is
to confine the iteration to *const access*
This is a good thing; the whole Record/GenNode structure
was designed to represent immutable data, necessitating
a dedicated *Mutator* for any reshaping.
seemingly the operator-> was not yet used in any real scenario.
The whole point with IterAdapter is that it uses an opaque "location type",
which is owned by the controlling container. In many cases this will
actually be just a pointer into the container storage, but we
must not assume it is this way. Thus the only way to obtain a
(language) pointer is to dereference the "position type" and
take the address of the result
Initially I intended just to supply an addapter to use
the monadic IterExplorer for this recursive expansion
of GenNode contents. Investigating this approach was
relevant to highlight the minimum requirements for
such an evaluation mechanics: since our GenNode
is an hierarchical structure without back-links,
we are bound to use a stack at some point. And
since an Iterator is a materialised continuation,
we can not use the processor stack and are forced
to represent this stack in memory.
Yet, on second thought, we do not need the full power
of the IterExplorer monad; especially we do not need
to bind arbitrary functions into the monad, just one
single scope exploring function, implemented as
Variant visitor. Based on these observations, we can
"inline" the monad structure into a double nested
iterator, where the outer capsule carries a stack
of scopes to be explored.
This helper was drafted for the Job / JobPlanning and Scheduler
interface in 2013, but seemingly not yet put into action. While
in the original use case, we have a genuine measuerment for the
tree depth (given by the depth of the processing stack), in other
use cases we want to use to offset embedded within the indicator
itself for keeping track of the depth. Thus I add a second
mark operation, which usess the current offset to set a new
reference level. This has the consequence that the offset
has now to reflect the new reference point immediately
Since C++ is not a real functional programming language and
has unsafe unmanaged pointers, it is not difficult to produce
dangling references within an extended evaluation pipeline
involving transient objects and pass-by-reference.
In the initial implementation, I built in a safeguard copy
into the signature of the Explorer function, to make sure even
a transiently dressed-up input value gets materialised before
proceeding with the source sequence. Unfortunately this safeguard
turns out as a roadblock now; we might as well take the input
by reference and return an "expanded" state by value. We might
even want to do the full "expansion" on referred state, when
we're able to ensure the source values remain in memory
until consumption.
Thus now the full power of decision is placed on the signature
of the explorer function. The expansion strategies of IterExplorer
will no longer attempt to "sanitise" the signature of the passed-in
function to prevent desaster; I've added some warnings into the
documentation to highlight that danger. Basically, if you want
to be clever, then you're bound to read and understand inticacies
of the implementation.
If in doubt, use values and copying. C++ is optimised for that.
allow to pick the bare function signature from any "function like" entity
Note: we're still unsing our own Typelist construct to represent
the function argument types. Since we're now using C++11, this
could be replaced by varargs, and we could get rid of those
various overloads for different numbers of arguments.
Unfortunately this transition is linked to the usage of
argument tuples in our command framework (which could then be
replaced by std::tuple), and this is still a bit of rather
technical work, which I do not want to spend much time on
right now
remembered that some years ago I had to deal with a very similar problem
for planning the frame rendering jobs. It turned out, that the
iterator monad developed for this looks promising for our task at hand
horay!
seems like madness?
well -- found and squashed a bug: equality on RecordRef
implicitly converted to GenNode(RecordRef), which always
generates new (distinct) IDs and so never succeeds. What
we really want is equality test on the references
contrary to the Visitor, accepting a Predicate is const,
and -- of course -- the Predicate invocation returns bool.
This can be used to implement comparison operators or
search functions on Variant based data structures.
There is no generic implementation for these functions, since
they are highly dependent on the payload used within Record<TY>
Here we use Record<GenNode>, which turns the whole setup into an
recursive data type; we especially rely on the fact that each
GenNode has an embedded symbolic ID, and we use this ID to encode
the 'key' for named attributes
while in debugging, it turned out that the short type-prefix
was implemented in a too simplistic way; it fails on stuff
like 'lib::diff::Record<lib::diff::GenNode>'
while I must add, that the whole purpose of these ID functions
is somewhat unclear and needs to reveal itself as we move forward
initially my intention was to use the ID for equality test.
But on a second thought, this seemed like a bad idea, since
it confuses the concepts of equality and identity.
Note: at the moment, I do not know if we even need an equality test,
so it is provided here rather for sake of completeness. And this
means even more that we want an 'equality' implementation that
does what one would naively expect: compare the object identity
*and* compare the contents.
...while on the train back from FrOSCon.
still the same old problem: we need a better hash function
for generating our Entry-IDs. The default hash function from Boost performs
poor on strings with common prefix and trailing number.
We use a hackish workaround, which is sufficient to avoid collisions
among the first 10000 numbers.
not entirely sure about the design, but lets try this approach:
they can be "cloned" and likewise move-assigned, but we do not
allow the regular assignment, because this would enable to use
references like pointers (what we deliberately do not want)
especially setting (changing) attributes turned out to be tricky,
since in case of a GenNode this would mean to re-bind the hash ID;
we can not possibly do that properly without knowing the type of the payload,
and by design this payload type is opaque (erased).
As resort, I changed the semantics of the assign operation:
now it rather builds a new payload element, with a given initialiser.
In case of the strings, this ends up being the same operation,
while in case of GenNode, this is now something entirely different:
we can now build a new GenNode "in place" of the old one, and both
will have the same symbolic ID (attribute key). Incidentally,
our Variant implementation will reject such a re-building operatinon
when this means to change the (opaque) payload type.
in addition, I created a new API function on the Mutator,
allowing to move-in a complete attribute object. Actually this
new function became the working implementation. This way, it is
still possible to emplace a new attribute efficiently (consider
this to be a whole object graph!). But only, if the key (ID)
embedded in the attribute object is already what is the intended
key for this attribute. This way, we elegantly circumvent the
problem of having to re-bind a hash ID without knowing the type seed
initially, the intention was to inject the type as a magic attribute.
But this turned out to make the implementation brittle, asymmetric
and either quite demanding, or inefficient.
The only sane approach would be to introduce a third collection,
the metadata attributes. Then it would be possible to handle these
automatically, but expose them through the iterator.
In the end I decided against it, just the type attribute
allone does not justify that effort. So now the type is an
special magic field and kept apart from any object data.
this solves the problem how to deal with value access
- for the simple default (string) implementation,
we use a 'key = val' syntax and thus have to split strings,
which means we need to return contents by value
- for the actual relevant use case we have GenNode entries,
which may recursively hold further Records. For dealing
with diff messages over this data struture, its a good
idea to allow for const& value access (otherwise we'd
end up copying large subtrees for trivial operaions)
OMG, what was all this about?
OK... this cant possibly work this way.
At least we need to trim after splitting the attributes.
But this is not enough, we want the value, which implies
to make the type flexible (since we cant return a const& to
a substring extracted on-the-fly)
this was an half hearted attempt to satisfy CLang,
but GCC as keen as a razor insists on these inherited
functions not being accessible --
seems like the time is over, when GCC used to be forgiving
and CLang briliantly precise...
So the conclusion of this "round trip" is: whenever GCC
also starts whining about shadowed overloaded virtual functions,
we'll just switch to "-Wno-overloaded-virtual" and be done with
that pointless discussion.
Since C++11, we have the Java style override specifier,
which does a way better job at spotting signature mismatches
Note: not fixing all relevant warnings.
Especially, the "-Woverloaded-virtual" of Clang defeats the whole purpose
of generated generic interfaces. For example, our Variant type is instantiated
with a list of types the variant can hold. Through metaprogramming, this
instantiation generates also an embedded Visitor interface, which has
virtual 'handle(TY)' functions for all the types in question
The client now may implement, or even partially implement this Visitor,
to retrieve specific data out of given Variant instance with unknown conent.
To complain that some other virtual overload is now shaddowed is besides the point,
so we might consider to disable this warning altogether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56402
The lambda definition captures the this pointer,
but the ctor of the lamda does not initialise this capture.
In our case, we're lucky, as we don't use the "this" pointer;
otherwise, we'd get a crash a runtime.
Fixed since GCC-4.7.3 --> it's *really* time to upgrade to Debian/Jessie
the object VTable is typically emitted when the compiler
encounters the first non-static non-inline function of
the class or a derived class.
Sometimes this happens within the wrong library and so
the compiler needs a nudge to emit those infrastructure functions.
But in most cases this works out of the box and need no further
magic incanctations, which might have a downside.
Especially because also a non-inline dtor does incur a call overhead,
whereas an inline dtor can be trivially elided.
after sleeping a night over this, it seems obvios
that we do not want to start the build proces "implicitly",
starting from a Record<GenNode>. Rather, we always want
the user to plant a dedicated Mutator object, which then
can remain noncopyable and is passed by reference through
the whole builder chain. Movin innards of *this object*
are moved away a the end of the chain does not pose much risk.
especially I've now decided how to handle const-ness:
We're open to all forms of const-ness, the actual usage decides.
const GenNode will only expose a const& to the data values
still TODO is the object builder notation for diff::Record
forwarding equality to the embedded EntryID
Basically, two GenNodes are equal when they have the same "identity"
Ironically, this is the usual twist with database entities
on a second thought, this "workaround" does not look so bad,
due to the C++11 feature to request the default implementation explicitly.
Maybe we'll never need a generic solution for these cases
I decided to allow for an 'unbound' reference to allow
default construction of elements involving record references.
I am aware of the implications, but I place the focus
on the value nature of GenNode elements; the RecordRef
was introduced only as a means to cary out diff comparisons
and similar computations.
basically this is the well known problem #587
Just it became more pressing with the Upgrade to Jessie and Boost 1.55
So I've pulled off the well known "Knuth trick" to spread the
input data more evenly within the hash domain.
And voilà: now we're able to use 100000 number suffixes without collision
- move the santitise operation up into EntryID's ctor
- turn the recast() operation into a real in-place cast
these changes should be transparent to the existing usages
of EntryID (within the asset framework), but allow for use
as attribute name holder in GenNode, since we're now able
to feed existing name/ID values directly into the ctor
of BareEntryID, without any spurious santitise operation.
using the struct-scheme.hpp and the requirements for
EntryID as a guideline. The goal is to move EntryID
over into the support lib, which means we need to get rid
of all direct proc::asset dependencies. Thus, these generic
ID functions shall form a baseline implementation, while
asset::Struct may provide the previously used implementation
through specialisation -- so the behaviour of EntryID will
not change for the structural assets, but we'll get a more
sane and readable default implementation for all other types.
before engaging into the implementation of lib::Record,
I prefer to conduct a round of planning, to get a clearer
view about the requirements we'll meet when extending
our existing list diff to tree structures
Initially, I considered to build an index table like
collection of ordered attributes. But since our actual
use case is Record<GenNode>, this was ruled out in favour
of just a vector<GenNode>, where the keys are embedded
right within the nameID-Field of GenNode.
A decisive factor was the observation, that this design
is basically forced to encode the attribute keys somehow
into the attribute values, because otherwise the whole
collection like initialisation and iteration would break
down. Thus, a fully generic implementation is not possible,
and a pseudo generic implementation just for the purpose of
writing unit tests would be overkill.
Basically this decision means that Record requires an
explicit specialisation to implement the attribute-key
binding for each value type to use.
Ouch!
Why does C++ lack the most basic everyday stuff?
It needn't be performant. It needn't support some fancy
higher order container. Just join the f***ing strings.
use Bosst?? -- OMG!! pulls in half the metra programming library
and tries to work on any concievable range like object. Just
somehow our Lumiera Forward Iterators aren't "range-like" enough
for boost's taste.
Thus let's code up that fucking for-loop ourselves, once and forever.
This is kind of the logic consequence, since we consider our
functional iterator concept still superior and will continue
to rely on it.
For some time now, I've considered to build a generic bridge
function, to use enable_if and metaprogramming to figure out
if some type is a "Lumiera Forward Iterator" automatically.
But since our concept is to some degree a contract regarding
semantics, which never can be captured by any kind of introspection,
such a bridge implementation would be rather heuristic and
bears the danger to trigger on types actually not intended
as iterator at all. So I consider such a solution as dangerous
and we'll settle with just supplying the necessary bridge
functions as free functions injected for ADL on a case by case base
this was spotted by a new GCC warning -Wunused-function
and I must admit, GCC is right here: an externally not visible
function in an anonymous namespace is not what I'd expect to be
picked up by ADL. It is rather weird that the metaprogramming
trait worked at all.
Note that the function is intentionally declared only, never defined.
We want a linker error in case boost::hash ever attempts to
use this 'deliberately ill-definded' catch-all.
Cockoo hashing is a thrilling algorithm.
We investigated it during the time or our first draft
towards a confirugation system in 2008. This usage turned
up some problems -- not sure if based on the implementation
or the algorithm itself; at that time, we just switched
to the probabilistic splay tree. The whole configuration
system effort stalled afterwards; so the cuckoo implementation
remained in tree as a zombie.
This switches the Lumiera UI from GTK-2 to GTK-3
Unfortunately, this move breaks two crucial features, which have been
disabled for now: the display of video and our custom timeline widget.
Since both of these require some reworking, which in fact has already
started, we prefer to do the library and framework switch right away.
over time, a specific Lumiera code writing style has emerged.
The GUI, as it stood, used somewhat different conventions,
which now have been aligned to the common standard.
Basically we use GNU style, with some adjustments for OO-programming,
we prefer CamelCase, and write TypeNames uppercase, variableNames lowercase
a long standing TODO to document the actual start-up sequence, which
is implemented this way since a long time now. There was an unwritten
section in the "Linking and Application Structure", which seems the
apropriate place for this kind of intricate techincal details.
Last week, Benny Lyons was here on visit in munich and he was pondering
the idea of an experimental secondary build system, as a way to learn
more about the source structure of Lumiera. This reminded me to fill
some missing parts of the documentation. Possibly this is also the
right moment to land the GTK-3 transition?
The actual trick to make it work is to use decltype on the function operator
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7943525/is-it-possible-to-figure-out-the-parameter-type-and-return-type-of-a-lambda/7943765#7943765
In addition, we now pick up the functor by template type and
store it under that very type. For one, this cuts the size
of the generated class by a factor of two. And it gives the
compiler the ability to inline a closure as much as is possible,
especially when the created Binder / Mutator lives in the same
reference frame the closure taps into.
to carry out that rather obvious step, I was bound to consider
all the implications of choosing a given layout and handling pattern
for our external structure representation.
Finally, I settled upon the following decisions
- the value space represented within the DataCap is flat, not further structured
- the distinction between "attribute" and "nested object" is merely conceptual
and will be enforced solely by the diff detection / representation protocol
- basically, a nested subtree may appear as an attribute; the difference
between attributes and children lies solely in the way of access and referral:
by-name vs. positional
- it is pointless to save space for the representation of the discriminator ID
- but we can omit any further explicit type tag, because
- we do *not* support programming by switch-on-type, and thus
- we do *not* support full introspection, only a passive type-safety check
- this is *not* a limitation, since we acknowledge that GenNode is a *Monad*
- and the partial function needed within any flatMap implementation
maps naturally onto our Variant-Visitor; thus
- the DataCap can basically just *be* a Variant
- and GenNode has just to supply the neccessary shaffolding
to turn that into a full fledged Monad implementation, including
direct construction by wrapping a value and flatMap with tree walk
All relevant uses will rely on the more strict access policy
implemented with the new util::AccessCasted. Along the same line
of thinking, I've removed the "second try" convenience conversion
from the typed get-Function of OpaqueHolder. Such an unbounded
"convert it somehow" approach is almost never a good idea. Either,
one knows by design the precise type to expect, or alternatively
should rely on the base interface solely.
...with the sole exception of the usage in WrapperPointer,
which in itself looks obsolete to me; we should better re-think
the way we handle "wrapped" objects for the BuilderTools, once
we actually start implementing the Builder
Ticket #450
Note: the new Variant implementation is a re-write from scratch
and does not rely on util::AccessCasted any more. Anyway, both
are now thoroughly covered by unit test
