...which mostly just is either ignoring the
operations or indicating failure on attempt to
'reorder' attributes (which don't have any notion of 'ordering')
overall, the structure of this implementation is still rather confusing,
yet any alternatives seem even less convincing
- if we want to avoid the delegation to base-class, we'd have
to duplicate several functions and the combined class would
handle two distinct concerns.
- any attempt to handle the IDs more "symmetrically" seems to
create additional problems on one side or the other
this also supersedes and removes the initial implementation
draft for attribute binding with the 'setAttribute' API
The elementary part of diff application incl. setting
new attribute values works by now.
While in general it is fine to clean-up any entity IDs
to be US-ASCII alphanumerics (plus some allowed interpunction),
the GenNodes and also keys in object-bindings for diff are
considerd internal interfaces, assuming that any passed
ID symbol is already sanitised and checked. So the
sanitise operation can be skipped. This changeset
adds the same option directly to lib::EntryID,
allowing to create an EntryID that matches
a similar GenNode's (hash) ID.
The way we build this attribute binding, there is no single
entity to handle all attribute bindings. Thus the only way
to detect a missing binding is when none of the binding layers
was able to handle a given INS verb
obvious mistake, we need a match on the GenNode ID,
so the key of the attribute binding must use the same symbol
...now the test fails at when hitting unimplemented stuff,
i.e. here the missing failure check
the idea is again to perform the same sequence of primitives,
this time with a binding to some local variables within the test function
here to enact the role of "object fields"
together with drafting the first segment of the test code,
I've settled down onto an implementation approach
the plan is to use this specific diff sequence
both in the individual binding tests, and in a
more high level integration test. Hopefully this
helps to make these quite technical tests more readable
to summarise, it turned out that it is impossible to
provide an airtight 'emptySrc' implementation when binding
to object fields -- so we distinguish into positive and
negative tests, allowing to loosen the sanity check
only for the latter ones when binding to object fields.
..as concluded from the preceding analysis.
NOTE this entails a semantical change, since this
predicate is now only meant to be indicative, not conclusive
remarks: the actual implementation of the diff application process
as bound via the TreeMutator remains yet to be written...
how can ordinary object fields be treated as "Attributes"
and thus tied into the Diff framework defined thus far.
This turns out to be really tricky, even questionable
while simple to add into the implementation, this whole feature
seems rather qestionable to me now, thus I've added a Ticket
to be revisited later.
In a nutshell, right here, when implementing the binding layer
for STL collections, it is easy to enable the framework to treat
Ref::THIS properly, but the *actual implementation* will necessarily
be offloaded onto each and every concrete binding implementation.
Thus client code would have to add support for an rather obscure
shortcut within the Diff language. The only way to avoid this
would be to change the semantics of the "match"-lambda: if this
binding would rather be a back-translation of implementation data
into GenNode::ID values, then we'd be able to implement Ref::THIS
natively. But such an approach looks like a way inferiour deisgn
to me; having delegated the meaning of a "match" to the client
seems like an asset, since it is both natural and opens a lot
of flexibility, without adding complexity.
For that reason I tend to avoid that shortcut now, in the hope
to be able to drop it entirely from the language
...basically this worked right away and was easy to put together.
However, when considering how many components, indirections and
nested lambdas are working together here, I feel a bit dizzy...
:-/
write down a first draft for a definiton section,
to describe the fundamental parts involved, when
applying a diff message onto implementation defined
data structures
After a break of tree weeks, I found it difficult to find may way
amidst all those various levels of abstraction. In addition to this
definition, we'll probably also need a high level overview of the
whole diff system operation.
...all of this implementation boils down to slightly adjusting
the code written for the test-mutation-target. Insofar it pays off now
having implemented this diagnostic and demonstration first.
Moreover I'm implementing this basic scheme of "diff application"
roughly the fourth time, thus things kindof fall into place now.
What's really hard is all those layers of abstraction in between.
Lesson learned (after being off for three weeks, due to LAC and
other obligations): I really need to document the meaning of the
closures, and I need to document the "abstract operational semantics"
of diff application, otherwise no one will be able to provide
the correct closures.
while I still keep my stance not to allow reflection and
switch-on-type, access to the internal / semantic type of
an embedded record seems a valid compromise to allow
to deal with collections of object-like children
of mixed kind.
Indirectly (and quite intentional) this also opens a loophole
to detect if a given GenNode might constitute a nested scope,
but with the for the actual nested element indeed to cary
a type symbol. Effectively this limits the use of this shortcut
to situations where the handling context does have some pre-established
knowledge about what types *might* be expected. This is precisely
the kind of constraint I intend to uphold: I do not want the
false notion of "total flexibility", as is conveyed by introspection.
since we're moving elements around to apply the diff,
dangerous situation might arise in case anyone takes a copy
of the mutator. Thus we effectively limit the possible
usage pattern and only allow to build an anonymous
TreeMutator subclass through the Builder-DSL.
The concrete "onion layers" of the TreeMutator are now limited
- to be created by the chaining operations of the Builder DSl
- to be moved into target location, retaining ownership.
I still feel somewhat queasy with this whole situation!
We need to return the product of the DSL/Builder by value,
but we also want to swap away the current contents before
starting the mutation, and we do not want a stateful lifecycle
for the mutator implementation. Which means, we need to swap
right at construction, and then we copy -- TADAAA!
Thus I'm going for the solution to disallow copying of the
mutator, yet to allow moving, and to change the builder
to move its product into place. Probably should even push
this policy up into the base class (TreeMutator) to set
everyone straight.
Looks like this didn't show up with the test dummy implementation
just because in this case the src buffer also lived within th
TestMutationTarget, which is assumed to sit where it is, so
effectively we moved around only pointers.
the whole implementation will very much be based on
my experiences with the TestMutationTarget and TestWireTap.
Insofar it was a good idea to implement this test dummy first,
as a prototype. Basically what emerges here is a standard pattern
how to implement a tree mutator:
- the TreeMutator will be a one-way-off "throwaway" object.
- its lifecylce starts with sucking away the previous contents
- consuming the diff moves contents back in place
- thus the mutator always attaches onto a target by reference
and needs the ability to manipulate the target
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.
the reason is also to enable usage as metafunction,
to disable specialisations for some type which could
never live within a variant record in question
re-evaluated the decision to build on lambdas, not virtual functions:
- it leads for sure to clearer code at the usag site
- it /might/ offer better, but certainly not worse potential for compiler optimisation
