Obsoletes and replaces the ad-hoc written type rebindings from
iter-adapter and friends. The new scheme is more consistent and does
less magic, which necessitates an additional remove_pointer<IT> within
the iterator adaptors. Rationale is, "pointer" is treated now just as
a primitive type without additional magic or unwrapping, since it is
impossible to tell generically if the pointer or the pointee was
meant to be the "value"
Oh well.
This kept me busy a whole day long -- and someone less stubborn like myself
would probably supect a "compiler bug" or put the blame on the language C++
So to stress this point: the compiler behaved CORRECT
Just SFINAE is dangerous stuff: the metafunction I concieved yesterday requires
a complete type, yet, under rather specific circumstances, when instantiating
mutually dependent templates (in our case lib::diff::Record<GenNode> is a
recursive type), the distinction between "complete" and "incomplete"
becomes blurry, and depends on the processing order. Which gave the
misleading impression as if there was a side-effect where the presence
of one definition changes the meaning of another one used in the same
program. What happened in fact was just that the evaluation order was
changed, causing the metafunction to fail silently, thus picking
another specialisation.
attempt to re-use the same traits as much as possible
NOTE: new code not passing compiler yet, but refactored old code
does, and still passes unit test
...which uncovered an error in the test fixture
plus helped to spot the spurious copy when passing the argument to the expand functor
And my GDB crashed when loading the executable, YAY!
so we'll need to coment out some code from now on,
until we're able to switch to a more recent toolchain (#1118)
...while this implementation works now, it is still very complex and intricate.
I am still doubtful this is a good approach, but well, we need to try that route....
but possible only for the iterator -> iterator case
Since we can not "probe" a generic lambda, we get only one shot:
we can try to bind it into a std::function with the assumed signature
...since all those metaprogramming techniques rely on SFINAE,
but *instantiating* a template means to compile it, which is more
than just substituate a type into the signature
If forming the signature fails -> SFINAE, try next one
If instantiating a template fails -> compile error, abort
Basically we want to support two distinct cases, just by slightly adapting
the invocation of the expansion functor:
Case-1: classical monadic flatMap:
the Functor accepts a value yielded by the source iterator
and builds a new "expaneded" iterator
Case-2: manipulation of opaque implementation state
the Functor knows internal details of the source iterator
and thus takes the source iterator as such as argument,
performs some manipulation and then builds a new sub-iterator
A soulution to reconcile those two distinct cases can be built
with the help of a generic lambda
Here, the tricky question remains, how to relate this evalutaion scheme
to the well known monadic handling of collections and iterators.
It seems, we can not yet decide upon that question, rather we should
first try to build a concrete implementation of the envisioned algorithm
and then reconsider the question later, to what extent this is "monadic"
This can be seen as a side track, but the hope is
by relying on some kind of monadic evaluation pattern, we'll be
able to to reconcile the IterExplorer draft from 2012 with the requirement
to keep the implementation of "tree position" entirely opaque.
The latter is mandatory in the use case here, since we must not intermingle
the algorithm to resolve UI-coordinates in any way with the code actually
navigating and accessing GTK widgets. Thus, we're forced to build some kind
of abstraction barrier, and this turns out to be surprisingly difficult.
...which was deliberately represented in an asymmetric way, to verify the
design's ability to cope with such implementation intricacies. So basically
we have to kick in at LEVEL == 1 and access the implementation differently.
This exercise just shows again, that treating tree structures recursively
is the way to go, and we should do similar when coding up the query-API
for the real GTK toolkit based window elements...
...which can be helpful when a function usually returns a somewhat dressed-up iterator,
but needs to return a specific fixed value under some circumstances
this fixes a silly mistake:
obviously we want named sub-nodes, aka. "Attributes",
but we used the anonymous sub-nodes instead, aka. "Children"
Incidentally, this renders the definitions also way more readable;
in fact the strange post-fix naming notation of the original version
was a clear indication of using the system backwards....
obviously, we get a trivial case, when the path is explicit,
and we need a tricky full blown resolution with backtracking
when forced to interpolate wildcards to cover a given UICoord
spec against the actual UI topology.
Do we need it?
* actually not right now
* but already a complete implementation of the ViewSpec concept
requires such a resolution
...to limit them to the UI-Coordinates themselves,
while declining the possibility to mutate the target environment
through the PathResolver. Better handle changes within the
target environment by dedicated API calls on the target elements,
instead of creating some kind of "universal structure"
..this collection of ideas, terms and conclusions has been shaped
since some time within the TiddlyWiki. Since I've now started even
some supporting implementation regarding these concepts, its time
to publish them in the design documentation section of the Website
After completing the self-contained UICoord data elements,
the next thing to consider might be how to resolve UI coordinates
against an actual window topology. We need to define a suitable
command-and-query interface in order to build and verify this
intricate resolution process separated from the actual UI code.
