the template lib::PolymorphicValue seemingly picked the wrong
implementation strategy for "virtual copy support": In fact it is possible
to use the optimal strategy here, since our interface inherits from CloneSupport,
yet the metaprogramming logic picked the mix-in-adapter (which requires one additional "slot"
of storage plus a dynamic_cast at runtime).
The reason for this malfunction was the fact that we used META_DETECT_FUNCTION
to detect the presence of a clone-support-function. This is not correct, since
it can only detect a function in the *same* class, not an inherited function.
Thus, switching to META_DETECT_FUNCTION_NAME solves this problem
Well, this solution has some downsides, but since I intend to rewrite the
whole virtual copy support (#1197) anyway, I'll deem this acceptable for now
TODO / WIP: still some diagnostics code to clean up, plus a better solution for the EmptyBase
...which, in the end, can even be considered the more logical design choice,
since the "verb visitor" is a more elaborated and sophisiticated Verb-Token,
adding the special twist of embedded storage for variable function arguments
...but bad news on the main issue:
the workaround consumes the tuple and thus is not tenable!
And what is even worse: the textbook implementation of std::apply is
equivalent to our workaround and also consumes the argument tuple
A simple yet weird workaround (and basically equivalent to our helper function)
is to wrap the argument tuple itself into std::forward<Args> -- which has the
effect of exposing RValue references to the forwarding function, thus silencing
the compiler.
I am not happy with this result, since it contradicts the notion of perfect forwarding.
As an asside, the ressearch has sorted out some secondary suspicions..
- it is *not* the Varargs argument pack as such
- it is *not* the VerbToken type as such
The problem clearly is related to exposing tuple elements to a forwarding function.
this is a generalisation of what we use in the diff framework;
typically you'd package the VerbToken into some kind of container,
together with the concrete invocation argument.
However, the specific twist here is that we want *variable arguments*,
depending on the actual operation called on the interpreter interface.
...which leads to a specific twist here; while in the simple version
we still could hope to get away with a simple uniform uint argument,
the situation has changed altogether now. The canvas has turned into
some generic component, since it is instantiated two times, onece for
the time ruler and once for the actual body content. Thus all of the
specifics of the drawing code need to be pushed into a new, dedicated
renderer component. And this more or less forces us to pass all the
actual presentation variations through the invocation arguments of
the visitor.
So we're now off again for a digression, we need a more generalised visitor
