the collection binding can be configured with various
lambdas to supply the basic building blocks of the generated binding.
Since we allow picking up basically anything (functors,
function pointers, function objects, lamdas), and since
we speculate on inlining optimisation of lambdas, we can not
enforce a specific signature in the builder functions.
But at least we can static_assert on the effective signature
at the point where we're generating the actual binding configuration
we can't generate a static assertion so easily here.
Problem is, when forming this type, we don't know if
the user will override and provide a custom binding
in some chained call within the nested DSL.
Might still be able to come up with some clever trick,
like e.g. returing an unsuitable marker type from these
dummy default implementations and then, later on, when
actually building the collection binding, to detect
those marker types and rise a static assert at that point.
This would at least give us a better error message,
and in theory, it should always be possible to
detect this kind of misuse at compile time
...through the use of partial specialisation and SFINAE.
There are some rather specific (yet expectedly not uncommon) cases,
where we'd be able to provide a sensible default for the
- match predicate
- new element constructor
of the binding. While in all other cases, the user
has to provide an explicit implementation for these
crucial building blocks anyway.
...but does not compile, since all of the fallback functions
will be instantiated, even while in fact we're overriding them
right away with something that *can* be compiled.
this prompts me to reconsider and question the basic approach
with closures for binding, while in fact what I am doing here
is to implement an ABC.
- the test will use some really private data types,
valid only within the scope of the test function.
- invoking the builder for real got me into problems
with the aggregate initialisation I'd used.
Maybe it's the function pointers? Anyway, working
around that by definint a telescope ctor
when setting up a binding to child elements within a STL collection,
all the variable elements are preconfigured to a more or less
disabled and inactive state.
the concern is for the structure of the builder to be
incomprehensible and completely buried within the
implementation details of the various binding layers
most of the mutation primitives return bool(true)
when /any/ layer or part of the TreeMuator was able
to cope with the diff verb.
This is based on the assumption to configure the
TreeMutator in such a way that at most one facility
will actually handle and apply a given verb. That is,
we'll assume that the TreeMutator acutally wraps and
adapts *one* custom data structure, to which the
diff has to be applied.
The TestWireTap is special, insofar it indeed targets
a *second* data structure, albeit not a "real" one,
just a dest and diagnostics dummy.
the first part of the unit test (now passing)
is able to demonstrate the full set of diff operations
just by binding to a TestMutationTarget.
Now, after verifying the design of those primmitive operations,
we can now proceed with bindings to "real" data structures
when implementing the assignment and mutation primitives
it became clear that the original approach of just storing
a log or string rendered elements does not work: for
assignment, we need to locate an element by ID
this one went through unnoticed, because the situation
is not covered in unit-test. The tests written thus fare
are more like a proof-of-concept. I didn't want to spend
weeks on writing extensive coverage of all corner cases,
at least not before all aspects of the tree diff protocol
are settled. Seemingly this backfires already
now the full API for the "mutation primitives" is shaped.
Of course the actual implementation is missing, but that
should be low hanging fuit by now.
What still requires some thinking though is how to implement
the selector, so we'll actually get a onion shaped decorator
basically we'll establish a collaboration where both sides
know only the interface (contract) of the partner; a safe margin
for allocation size has to be established through metaprogramming (TODO)
what's problematic is that we leave back waste in the
internal buffer holding the source. Thus it doesn't make
sense to check if this buffer is empty. Rather the
Mutator must offer an predicate emptySrc().
This will be relevant for other implementations as well
while the original name, 'replace', conveys the intention,
this more standard name 'swap' reveals what is done
and thus opens a wider array of possible usage
now this feels like making progress again,
even when just writing stubs ;-)
Moreover, it became clear that the "typing" of typed child collections
will always be ad hoc, and thus needs to be ensured on a case by case
base. As a consequence, all mutation primitives must carry the
necessary information for the internal selector to decide if this
primitive is applicable to a given decorator layer. Because
otherwise it is not possible to uphold the concept of a single,
abstracted "source position", where in fact each typed sub-collection
of children (and thus each "onion layer" in the decorator chain)
maintains its own private position
after sleeping one night over the problem, this seems to be
the most natural solution, since the possibility of assignment
naturally arises from the fact that, for tree diff, we have
to distinguish between the *identity* of an element node and
its payload (which could be recursive). Thus, IFF the payoad
is an assignable value, why not allow to assign it. Doing so
elegnatly solves the problem with assignment of attributes
Signed-off-by: Ichthyostega <prg@ichthyostega.de>
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. ;-)
...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.
