- strive at complete branch coverage for the mapping function
- decide that the neutral value can deliberately lie outside
the value range, in which case the probability setting
controls the number of _value_ result incidents vs
neutral value result incidents.
- introduce a third path to define this case clearly
- implement the range setting Builder-API functions
- absorb boundrary and illegal cases
For sake of simplicity, since this whole exercise is a byproduct,
the mapping calculations are done in doubles. To get even distribution
of values and a good randomisation, it is thus necessary to break
down the size_t hash value in a first step (size_t can be 64bit
and random numbers would be subject to rounding errors otherwise)
The choice of this quantiser is tricky; it must be a power of two
to guarantee even distribution, and if chosen to close to the grid
of the result values, with lower probabilities we'd fail to cover
some of the possible result values. If chosen to large, then
of course we'd run danger of producing correlated numbers on
consecutive picks.
Attempting to use 4 bits of headroom above the log-2 of the
required value range. For example, 10-step values would use
a quantiser of 128, which looks like a good compromise.
The following tests will show how good this choice holds up.
The first step was to allow setting a minimum value,
which in theory could also be negative (at no point is the
code actually limited to unsigned values; this is rather
the default in practice).
But reconsidering this extensions, then you'd also want
the "neutral value" to be handled properly. Within context,
this means that the *probability* controls when values other
than the neutral value are produced; especially with p = 1.0
the neutral value shall not be produced at all
...since the Policy class now defines the function signature,
we can no longer assume that "input" is size_t. Rather, all
invocations must rely on the generic adaptaion scheme.
Getting this correct turns out rather tricky again;
best to rely on a generic function-composition.
Indeed I programmed such a helper several years ago,
with the caveat that at that time we used C++03 and
could not perfect-forward arguments. Today this problem
can be solved much more succinct using generic Lambdas.
to define this as a generic library component,
any reference to the actual data source moust be extracted
from the body of the implementation and supplied later
at usage site. In the actual case at hand the source
for randomness would be the node hash, and that is
absolutely an internal implementation detail.
The idea is to use some source of randomness to pick a
limited parameter value with controllable probability.
While the core of the implementation is nothing more
than some simple numeric adjustments, these turn out
to be rather intricate and obscure; the desire to
package these technicalities into a component
however necessitates to make invocations
at usage site self explanatory.
