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.
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
this design is rather into the blue,
not sure what we actually need for diff generation
and object serialisation. Anyhow, I considered including
a bracketing construct a good idea, and I considered it
sensible to expose inner nodes, not only the leaf nodes.
Obviously, this is not a real monad iteration then.
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
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
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
these speical reference-flavours of a GenNode are built
to stand-in for a full fledged "object" GenNode.
The purpose is to be able to handle sub-trees of objects
efficiently in comparisions and processing.
This is just a draft for now -- kindof a by-catch, since it is
chep to build that DSL on top of the Rec::Mutator.
This DSL could be of value later, when it comes to define
some configuration data inline, in a copact and clear fashion,
without the need to use a bridge to/from JSON
- can build from the supported value types
- is optionally named
- is copyable value, but only assignable within one payload type
- is recursive, for object / tree representation
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
- we use a GenNode element
- this holds a polymorphic value known as DataCap
- besides simple attribute values, this may hold collections of GenNode sub elements
- a special kind of GenNode collection, the Record, is used to represent objects
The purpose of this setup is to enable an external model representation
which is only loosely coupled to the interndal data representation
through the exchange of (tree)diff messages
