the reason for the failure, as it turned out,
is that 'noexcept' is part of the function signature since C++17
And, since typically a STL container has const and non-const variants
of the begin() and end() function, the match to a member function pointer
became ambuguous, when probing with a signature without 'noexcept'
However, we deliberately want to support "any STL container like" types,
and this IMHO should include types with a possibly throwing iterator.
The rationale is, sometimes we want to expose some element *generator*
behind a container-like interface.
At this point I did an investigation if we can emulate something
in the way of a Concept -- i.e. rather than checking for the presence
of some functions on the interface, better try to cover the necessary
behaviour, like in a type class.
Unfortunately, while doable, this turns out to become quite technical;
and this highlights why the C++20 concepts are such an important addition
to the language.
So for the time being, we'll amend the existing solution
and look ahead to C++20
as it turns out, "almost" the whole codebase compiles in C++17 mode.
with the exception of two metaprogramming-related problems:
- our "duck detector" for STL containers does not trigger anymore
- the Metafunction to dissect Function sigantures (meta::_Fun) flounders
"%broken" is not broken anymore, but renders a boolean,
and we configured the formatter not to complain on missing values.
Fortunately "%madness" is still broken ;-)
When drafting the time handling framework some years ago,
I foresaw the possible danger of mixing up numbers relating
to fractional seconds, with other plain numbers intended as
frame counts or as micro ticks. Thus I deliberately picked
an incompatible integer type for FSecs = boost::rational<long>
However, using long is problematic in itself, since its actual
bit length is not fixed, and especially on 32bit platforms long
is quite surprisingly defined to be the same as int.
However, meanwhile, using the new C++ features, I have blocked
pretty much any possible implicit conversion path, requiring
explicit conversions in the relevant ctor invocations. So,
after weighting in the alternatives, FSecs is now defined
as boost::rational<int64_t>.
GCC8 now spots and warns about such mismatches.
And we should take such warnings seriously;
code produced by the newer GCC versions tends to segfault,
especially under -O2 and above, when a return statement is
actually missing, even if the return value is actually not
used at call site.
Here, a functor to unlock the active "guard" is passed into
a macro construct, which basically allows to abstract the
various kinds of "guards", be it mutex, condition variable
or the like.
Seemingly, the intention was to deal with a failure when
unlocking -- however all the real implementations prefer
to kill the whole application without much ado.
...to solve the problem with interwoven nested ctor invocation.
This interface also promises to help with nested invcations,
without being overly generic.
Our diff language requires a diff to handle the complete contents of the target.
Through this clean-up hook this is now in fact enforced.
The actual reason for adding this however was that I need to ensure
listeners are triggered
As it turned out, the reason was a missing move-ctor.
The base of the whole DSL-Stack, TreeMutator, is defined MoveOnly,
and this is also the intended use (build an anonymous instance
through the DSL and move it into the work buffer prior to diff application)
However, C++ does *cease to define* a move ctor implicitly,
whenever /one of the "big five" is defined explicitly/.
So Detector4StructuralChanges was the culprit, it defined a dtor,
but failed to define the move ctor explicitly.
So.... well, this did cost me several hours to track down,
yet I still rather do not want to write all those ctors explicitly all the time,
and so I am still in favour of implicitly generated ctors, even if they hurt sometimes.
with the new decorator layer, we suddenly trigger a chain of template instantiation errors.
At first sight, they are almost undecipherable, yet after some experimentation, it becomes clear
that they relate down to the base class (TreeMutator), which is defined MoveOnly
This seems to indicate that, at some point in the call chain, we are
digressing from the move-construction scheme and switch over to copy construction,
which in the end failst (and shall fail).
Inconclusive, to be investigated further
basically the solution was a bit too naive and assumed everything is similar to a vector.
It is not, and this leads to some insidious problems with std::map, which hereby
are resolved by introducing ContainerTraits
All of the existing "simple" tests for the »Diff Framework« are way to much low-level;
they might indeed be elementary, but not introductory and simple to grasp.
We need a very simplistic example to show off the idea of mutation by diff,
and this simple example can then be used to build further usage test cases.
My actual goal for #1206 to have such a very basic usage demonstration and then
to attach a listener to this setup, and verify it is actually triggered.
PS: the name "GenNodeBasic_test" is somewhat pathetic, this test covers a lot
of ground and is anything but "basic". GenNode in fact became a widely used
fundamental data structure within Lumiera, and -- admittedly -- the existing
implementation might be somewhat simplistic, while the whole concept as such
is demanding, and we should accept that as the state of affairs
Basically the advice system is just some further helper component with
a lookup table, which "just works" transparently most of the time.
We'd need those diagnostic messages only when explicitly debugging
for some kind of access-after death, which should not happen as long
as we stick to the general policy not to allow any significant functionality
to be hooked up from dtors
now the lifecycle of widget and hook are tightly interwoven.
Indeed the test uncovered a situation where a call into the
already destroyed Canvas might halt the application.
...basically it occurred to me that in practice we will never have to deal
with isolated ViewHooks, rather with widgets-combinded-with-a-hook.
So the idea is to combine both into a template ViewHooked<W>
basically this attempts to work around an "impedance mismatch" caused by relying on Lumiera's Diff framework.
Applying a diff might alter the structural order of components, without those componets
being aware of the change. If especially those components are attached into some
UI layout, or otherwise delegate to display widgets, we need a dedicated mechanism
to reestablish those display elements in proper order after applying the change.
The typical examples is a sequence of sub-Tracks, which might have been reordert due
to applying rules down in the Steam Layer. The resulting diff will propagate the
new order of sub-Tracks up into the UI, yet now all of the elaborate layout and
space allocation done in the presentation code needs to be adjusted or even
recomputed to accomodate the change.
...to form a single framework for view attachment.
Obviously, we have two quite distinct cases to cover
- attaching a widget onto a canvas
- hooking a widget as subtree into a grid/tree control
By applying a Diff, the children of some timeline element (track) may be re-ordered.
This imposes specific problems, since these elements hold onto slave-Widgets,
which are already attached into some elaborated and nested widget structure.
To keep complexity under control, we can not allow the TrackPresenter to have
any knowledge regarding the implementation structure of these target widgets.
Thus I am pondering the idea to represent that relation as an abstracted ViewHook link
...which serves to solve the problem with Canvas access.
Basically we do not want each and every Clip widget to be aware of the concrete canvas implementation widget;
and in addition, automated removal of widgets from the Canvas seems desirable
This is dummy/test/diagnostics code and should be removed when the track display code is complete!
It can be activated by sending a "mark"-Message via the UI-Bus, towards the
Timeline element to be tested (Tip: use the same ID as used when injecting
the Timeline via the TestControl Dialog box). When receiving this message
(asynchronously), the TimelineControler asks each nested TrackPresnter
to inject a Button with the corresponding track name onto the BodyCanvasWidget.
This allows us to verify the coordinate calculation and size allocation --
and indeed, the numbers are not yet correct (TODO)
admittedly this is a bit sketchy, but I don't have a better framework to hinge upon right now.
Thus we store the vertical start coordinates and the offset of the content area
as a side effect, while calculating the TrackProfile
...which has the nice additional effect of exposing box-shadow on the outside of the content area too.
Thus the content area now behaves equivalent to the rulers, and adjacent
content space of simple tracks without rulers and nesting can be slightly
offset from each other through a margin in CSS
In the end, I used the profile building pass to also calculate and sum up the vertical offsets.
Seems to be the only sane approach to get really precise values, since adjacent
upwards slopes can be combined at various places (and I do not want to use the
actual drawing code for this calculation)
need to investigate and probably need to store per track offset values
already while building the track profile. The primary reason for the
observed discrepancy seems to be the rather flexible combination of
slope borders.
Especially note the tricks we need to play in order to allow for (limited) usage of CSS3 box-shadows.
The reason is, all these CSS3 effects are rendered in one shot and combinend on the StyleContext::render_background() call
Thus we need to ensure that the background is properly aligned with the frames
