rationale: sometimes (likely this is even the standard case) we do not just
want to "extend", rather we want to extent at very specific levels.
This is easy to implement, based on the existing building blocks for path manipulation
the original construction works only as long as we stick to the "classical" Builder syntax,
i.e. use chained calls of the builder functions. But as soon as we just invoke
some builder function for sake of the side-effect on the data within the builder,
this data is destroyed and moved out into the value return type, which unfortunately
is being thrown away right afterwards.
Thus: either make a builder really sideeffect-free, i.e. do each mutation
on a new copy (which is kind of inefficient and counterfeits the whole idea)
or just accept the side-effect and return only a reference.
In this case, we can still return a rvalue-Reference, since at the end
we want to move the product of the build process out into the destination.
This works only due to the C++ concept of sequence points, which ensures
the original object stays alive during the whole evaluation of such a chained
builder expression.
NOTE: the TreeMutator (in namespace lib::diff) also uses a similar Builder construction,
but in *that* case we really build a new product in each step and thus *must*
return a value object, otherwise the reference would already be dangling the
moment we leave the builder function.
- the default should be to look for total coverage
- the predicates should reflect the actual state of the path only
- the 'canXXX' predicates test for possible covering mutation
I set out to "discover" what operations we actually need on the LocationQuery
interface, in order to build a "coordinate resolver" on top. It seems like
this set of operations is clear by now.
It comes somewhat as a surprise that this API is so small. This became possible
through the idea of a ''child iterator'' with the additional ability to delve down and
expand one level of children of the current element. Such can be ''implemented''
by relying on techniques similar to the "Monads" from functional programming.
Let's see if this was a good choice. The price to pay is a high level of ''formal precision''
when dealing with the abstraction barrier. We need to stick strictly to the notion of a
''logical path'' into a tree-like topology, and we need to be strong enough never to
give in and indulge with "the concrete, tangible". The concrete reality of a tree
processing algorithm with memory management plus backtracking is just to complex
to be handled mentally. So either stick to the rules or get lost.
...but not yet switched into the main LocationQuery interface,
because that would also break the existing implementation;
recasting this implementation is the next step to do....
NOTE it just type checks right now,
but since meta programming is functional programming, this means
with >90% probability that it might actually work this way....
...which also happens to include sibling and child iteration;
this is an attempt to reconcile the inner contradictions of the design
(we need both absolute flexibility for the type of each child level iterator
yet we want just a single, generic iterator front-end)
...this was a difficult piece of consideration and analysis.
In the end I've settled down on a compromise solution,
with the potential to be extended into the right direction eventually...
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.
the intention is to rely solely upon this abstract interface
in order to navigate the structure of the actual UI, so the
resolution process remains decoupled from the technicalities
of the actual UI toolkit set.
Through implementation of the corresponding unit test we'll determine
what it actually takes to build such a path resolution algorithm...
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
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.
