Explicitly assuming that those functions are called solely from IterAdapter
and that they are implemented in a typical standard style, we're able to elide
two redundant calls to the checkPoint() function. Since checkPoint typically performs
some non-trivial checks, this has the potential of a significant performance improvement
- we check (and throw ITER_EXHAUST) anyway from operator++, so we know that pos is valid
- the iterate() function ensures checkPoint is invoked right after iterNext,
and thus the typical standard implementation of iterNext need not do the same
...since that is what it meant to be.
To allow this chance, I've now added a default ctor to lib::Literal,
defaulting to the Symbol::EMPTY (the interned empty string)
The class Literal is used as a thin wrapper to mark the fact that
some string parameter or value is assumed to be given *literally*
For the contract this indicates
- that storage is somewhere
- storage is not owned and managed by Literal
- yet storage guaranteed to exist during the whole lifetime of the program
- Literal can not be altered
- Literal is transparently convertible to const char *
Currently I am in the course of building some path abstraction, and for that
task it makes sense to hold an array of Literals (instead of pointers), just
because it expresses the intent way more clear. I do not see anything in the
above mentioned contract to prohibit a default constructed Literal, with the
empty string being the most obvious choice.
Note: there is the class Symbol, which derives from Literal. Symbol takes
arbitrary strings, but *interns* them into a static symbol table.
...under the assumption that the content is normalised,
which means
- leading NULL is changed to Symbol::EMPTY
- missing elements in the middle are marked as "*"
- trailing NULL in extension storage is handled by adjusting nominal extension size
after various fruitless attempts to rely somehow on the array variant of unique_ptr,
I ended up with a hand coded version of an heap allocated array, managed automatically
as it turned out, the solution from yesterday works only with uniform argument lists,
but not with arbitrarily mixed types. Moreover the whole trickery with the
indices was shitty -- better use a predicate decision on template argument level.
This simple solution somehow just didn't occur to me...
...still somewhat unsatisfactory, because
- no clear compile error message when invoking pickArg with insufficient arguments
- the default initialisation case in SelectVararg is duplicated and messy
some time ago we abandoned our own tuple type in favour of std::tuple
Since then, the helpers and ported utilities provide some generic helpers
to deal with variadic argument sequences, especially to build index sequences,
which in turn can be used to "pick" individual arguments from a variadic parameter pack.
The expectation is for this part of the support library gradually to grow and
in parts to replace the existing type sequence processing helpers. The expectation
is that we'll retain the basic type sequence, lib::meta::Types, but retrofit it
to rely on variadic arguments
since the adoption of C++11, we gradually transition our metaprogramming helpers
to support and rely on variadic template parameters. For the time being,
we just augment existing facilities when it comes in handy, yet some more
heavyweight lifting and overall clean-up remains to be done eventually.
seems to be impossible to get rid of the intermediary argument repackaging delegate call.
As always the reason is that argument packs are no real first class types
there is the danger to get into building a fully generic solution, which is
- quite hard / challenging
- counterfeits the goal of writing easy-to-read code
This is the very reason why I do not want to use boost::MPL,
because in our usage situation, their abstractions are not worth
the price in terms of hard to read code.
exploring the idea of a configuration DSL.
As a first step, this could be a simple internal DSL,
implemented as a bunch of static functor objects, which are internally bound
and thus implemented by the ViewLocator within InteractionDirector
...we have to face the problem that we need some generic strategy
for access to component views, which possibly will become customisable.
And the allowed patterns of access are quite different for the various
kind of view we know....
responsible for access and allocation of component views.
Internally wired to the PanelLocator within the global WindowLocator
This setup settles those nasty qeustions of crosswise top-level access
this starts work on a new UI global topic (#1004)
- coin a new term: "view component"
- distinction between veiw component and Panel
- consider how to locate view components
- WindowList becomes WindowLocator
