The prototype implementations of BuferProvider and OutputSlot are confusing;
in-depth analysis shows that this is related to intermingling use
of test instrumentation and features of a prototypical default.
To get anywhere with the existing code, it seems we'd need to split off
the test instrumentation (i.e. `DiagnosticBufferProvider`) altogether,
even if this causes duplication of implementation code. Many years ago,
when first implementing this prototype, I had no clear idea what the usage
in the Render Engine entails, yet I noticed that some basic buffer »tracking«
could be used as implementation primitive to simplify the prototyping work.
This might be one of the reasons, why the "code behind" in the protocol
implementations both in `BufferProvider` and `OutputSlot` became so strongly
tangled, so that I way unable to make both protocols orthogonally composable.
The implementation code for `DiagnosticOutputProvider` and `TrackingHeapBlockProvider`
look very confusing and tangled. It seems, instrumentation for tests
got mixed up with the effort to provide a simplistic prototype implementation.
What we need foremost here is the latter; most tests that import the
DiagnosticOutputProvider do not even use any instrumentation....
Some further tweaks to the logic to allow using the `FeedPrototype` in the default setup,
where ''nothing shall be done with parameters...''
Provide the basic constructors and a type constructor in FeedManifold,
so that it is possible to install a ''processing functor'' into the prototype
and then drop off a copy into each new `FeedManifold`
With this additions, can now **demonstrate simple usage**
__Remark__: using the `DiagnosticBufferProvider` developed several years ago;
Seems to work well; however, when creating a new instance in the next test case,
we get a hard failure when the previous test case did not discard all buffers.
Not sure what to think about that
* for one, it is good to get an alarm, since actually there should not be any leak
* but on the other hand, `reset()` does imply IMHO „I want a clean slate“
Adding some code thus to clean out memory blocks marked as used.
When a test wants to check that all memory was released, there are tools to do so.
* Lumiera source code always was copyrighted by individual contributors
* there is no entity "Lumiera.org" which holds any copyrights
* Lumiera source code is provided under the GPL Version 2+
== Explanations ==
Lumiera as a whole is distributed under Copyleft, GNU General Public License Version 2 or above.
For this to become legally effective, the ''File COPYING in the root directory is sufficient.''
The licensing header in each file is not strictly necessary, yet considered good practice;
attaching a licence notice increases the likeliness that this information is retained
in case someone extracts individual code files. However, it is not by the presence of some
text, that legally binding licensing terms become effective; rather the fact matters that a
given piece of code was provably copyrighted and published under a license. Even reformatting
the code, renaming some variables or deleting parts of the code will not alter this legal
situation, but rather creates a derivative work, which is likewise covered by the GPL!
The most relevant information in the file header is the notice regarding the
time of the first individual copyright claim. By virtue of this initial copyright,
the first author is entitled to choose the terms of licensing. All further
modifications are permitted and covered by the License. The specific wording
or format of the copyright header is not legally relevant, as long as the
intention to publish under the GPL remains clear. The extended wording was
based on a recommendation by the FSF. It can be shortened, because the full terms
of the license are provided alongside the distribution, in the file COPYING.
