This ZoomWindow_test highlights again the question about the intended usage
of the Lumiera time entities. In which way do we want to perform time calculations,
and under which circumstances is it adequate to perform arithmetic on
raw time values?
These questions made me think about rather far reaching concerns regarding
subsidiarity and implicit or explicit usage context. Basically I could
reconfirm the design choices taken some years ago -- while I must admit
that the project is headed towards a way larger scale and more loose
coupling of the parts, than I could imagine several years ago, at the
time when the design started...
As a side note: we can not avoid that some knowledge about the time implementation
leaks out from the support lib; time codes themselves are tightly coupled
to the usage scenario within the session and can not be used as means
for implementing UI concerns. And the more generic time frameworks,
like std::chrono (as much as it is desirable to have some integration here)
will not be of any help for most of our specific usage patterns.
The reason is, for film editing we do not have a global time scale,
rather the truth is when the film starts....
implement the first test case: nudge the zoom factor
⟹ scale factor doubled
⟹ visible window reduced to half size
⟹ visible window placed in the middle of the overall range
According to plan, this was more or less a drop-in replacement.
However, this first integration prototype highlights some design problems
* `ElementBoxWidget` is designed ''constructor-centric''
* but the population by diff messages will supply crucial information later
* and seemingly the size-constraint code is now invoked prior to widget realisation \\
⟹ Assertion Failure
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>.
<rant>
the "improved" boost::rational can no longer compute 1/x
quite brilliant
</rant>
well... the reason is again signed vs unsigned int.
FrameRate is based on unsigned int (since a negative frame rate makes no sense).
seemingly, the newer boost libraries added an internal type rational<I>::bool_type
together with an overload for the equality comparison operator.
Unfortunately this now renders a comparison ambiguous with the constant zero (i.e. int{0})
because in our use case we employ rational<uint>.
Workaround is to compare explicitly to a zero of the underlying integer type.
effectively we rely in the micro tick timescale promoted by libGAVL,
but it seems indicated to introduce our own constant definition.
And also clarify some comments and tests.
(this changeset does not change any values or functionality)
seemingly this code was brittle: GCC-7 treats int64_t as long,
which leads to preferring the template specialisation over the
explicit version of the operator* -- which means the template
instantiation invokes itself.
From a purely logical viewpoint, it looked sensible to require an actual
value for an offset, especially since our time values are immutable.
But this has the unfortunate consequence that we'd be unable to use
an offset value as parameter for any command, since we store the arguments
as tuple and the tuple type has a default constructor. We might be able
to get around that problem, but such looks brittle to me; it is just
plain surprising for anyone not familiar with the internals of the
command system.
For that reason, I've now added a default ctor to the Offset type
the functionality as such is already covered,
but it seems important enough to warrant a dedicated test.
incidentally, Duration still lacked a default ctor.
Time values are default constructible, yet immutable.
...probably just an omission. TimeValue and Time are
also default constructible, and this makes sense, semantically.
Please note that Time values are *immutable* though.
Only TimeVar can be reassigned. This is so by design
Initially I've deliberately omitted those, to nudge towards
using time quantisation and TCode formatting for any external
representation of time values.
While this recommendation is still valid, the overloaded
string conversion turns out to be helpful for unit testing
and diagnostics in compound data structures.
See Record<GenNode>
using our util::_Fmt front-end helps to reduce the code size,
since all usages rely on a single inclusion of boost::format
including boost::format via header can cause quite some code bloat
NOTE: partial solution, still some further includes to reorganise
implemented as extension to the linear combinations.
I decided to use the same "always floor" rule
as employed for time quantisation. Moreover,
we don't support floating point, only rationals
removed that inheritance relation; it was a typical
example of abusing inheritance and violated the
Liscov substitution principle. It is sufficient
to allow promotion of an offset into a Duration.
Note: Duration is the time metric
Note: it's rather arbitrary choosen,
because any time grid can define its own origin.
You must not assume that the origin of any time axis
is located at Time::ZERO !!
this is the first building block in an attempt to
protrect against time wraparound. The intention is
not to be airtight, but practically effective.
A really airtight solution would require writing
our own SafeInt class
