this is a tricky undertaking, since our treeExplore() helper constructs
a complex wrapped type, depending on the actual builder expressions used.
Solution is to use decltype on the result of a helper function,
and let the _DecoratorTraits from TreeExplorer do the necessary type adaptations
when adapting a functor, the wrapper automatically decides
if this functor was meant to be used in "monadic style" (value -> new monad)
or in "manipulate state-core style" (iter& -> iter)
Unfortunately, in some cases functions accepting a partially built pipeline
will be classified in the wrong way, due to the fact that IterableDecorator
has a templated wildcard constructor and thus seems to accept the conversion
value_type -> IterableDecorator. This causes the "monadic style" to be chosen
erroneously, and leads to a template instantiation failure just at the point when
the generated functor will be used.
The solution is to explicitly *rule out* the monadic usage style
in all those cases, where the *argument* of the functor to bind can
in fact be directly constructed / converted from the source iterator
or state core. Because, if that is the case
- it is superfluous explicitly to dereference the source iterator;
the functor can do the same
- chances are that the "manipulation style" was intended
(as was the case in the concrete example at hand here)
The intention is to augment the iterator based (linear) search
used in EventLog to allow for real backtracking, based on a evaluation tree.
This should be rather staight forward to implement, relying on the
exploreChildren() functionality of TreeExplorer. The trick is to package
the chained search step as a monadic flatMap operation
while this is basically a drop-in replacement,
it marks the switch to the monadic evaluation technology,
which is prerequisite for building real backtracking into the search.
we did an unnecessary copy of the argument, which was uncovered
by the test case manipulating the state core.
Whew.
Now we have a beautiful new overengineered solution
outift the Filter base class with the most generic form of the Functor
wrapper, and rather wrap each functor argument individually. This allows
then to combine various kinds of functors
...this solution works, but has a shortcoming:
the type of the passed lambdas is effectively pinned to conform
with the signature of the first lambda used initially when building the filter.
Well, this is the standard use case, but it kind of turns all the
tricky warpping and re-binding into a nonsense excercise; in this form
the filter can only be used in the monadic case (value -> bool).
Especially this rules out all the advanced usages, where the filter
collaborates with the internals of the source.
while this is basically just code code cosmetics,
at least it marks this as a very distinct special case,
and keeps the API for the standard Filter layer clean.
a quite convoluted construct built from several nested generic lambdas.
When investigated in the debugger, the observed addresses and the
invoked code looks sane and as expected.
The intention is to switch from the itertools-based filter
to the filter available in the TreeExplorer framework.
Thus "basically" we just need to copy the solution over,
since both are conceptually equivalent.
However...... :-(
The TreeExplorer framework is designed to be way more generic
and accepts basically everything as argument and tries to adapt apropriately.
This means we have to use a lot of intricate boilerplate code,
just to get the same effect that was possible in Itertools with
a simple and elegant in-place lambda assignment
Fillter needs to be re-evaluated, when an downstream entity requests
expandChildren() onto an upstream source. And obviously the ordering
of the chained calls was wrong here.
As it turns out, I had discovered that necessity to re-evaluate with
the Transformer layer. There is a dedicated test case for that, but
I cut short on verifying the filter in that situation as well, so
that piece of broken copy-n-paste code went through undetected.
This is in fact a rather esoteric corner case, because it is only
triggered when the expandChildren() call is passed through the filter.
When otoh the filter sits /after/ the entity generating the expandChildren()
calls, everything works as intended. And the latter is the typical standard
usage situation of an recursive evalutation algorithm: the filter is here
used as final part to drive the evaluation ahead and pick the solutions.
There is a bug or shortcoming in the existing ErrorLog matcher implementation.
It is not really difficult to fix, however doing so would require us to intersperse
yet another helper facility into the log matcher. And it occurred to me, that
this helper would effectively re-implement the stack based backtracking ability,
which is already present in TreeExplorer (and was created precisely to support
this kind of recursive evaluation strategies).
Thus I intend to switch the implementation of the EventLog matcher from the
old IterTool framework to the newer TreeExplorer framework. And this intention
made me re-read the code, fixing several comments and re-thinking the design
- polish the text in the TiddlyWiki
- integrate some new pages in the published documentation
Still mostly placeholder text with some indications
- fill in the relevant sections in the overview document
- adjust, expand and update the Doxygen comments
TODO: could convert the TiddlyWiki page to Asciidoc and
publish it mostly as-is. Especially the nice benchmarks
from yesterday :-D
...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....
...which basically allows us to return any suitable implementation
for the child iterator, even to switch the concrete iteration on each level.
We need this flexibility when implementing navigation through a concrete UI
...yet I do not want to move all of the traits over into the
publicly visible lib::iter_explorer namespace -- I'm quite happy
with these traits being clearly marked as local internal details
several extensions and convenience features are conceivable,
but I'll postpone all of them for later, when actual need arises
Note especially there is one recurring design challenge, when creating
such a demand-driven tree evaluation: more often than not it turns out
that "downstream" will need some information about the nested tree structure,
even while, on the surfice, it looks as if the evaluation could be working
completely "linearised". Often, such a need arises from diagnostic features,
and sometimes we want to invoke another API, which in turn could benefit
from knowing something about the original tree structure, even if just
abstracted.
I have no real solution for this problem, but implementing this pipeline builder
leads to a pragmatic workaround: since the iterator already exposes a expandChildren(),
it may as well expose a depth() call, even while keeping anything beyond that
opaque. This is not the clean solution you'd like, but it comes without any
overhead and does not really break the abstraction.
...so sad.
The existing implementation was way more elegant,
just it discarded an exahusted parent element right while in expansion,
so effectively the child sequence took its place. Resolved that by
decomposing the iterNext() operation. And to keep it still readable,
I make the invariant of this class explicit and check it (which
caught yet another undsicovered bug. Yay!)
instead of building a very specific collaboration,
rather just pass the tree depth information over the extended iterator API.
This way, "downstream" clients *can* possibly react on nested scope exploration
...and there is a point where to stop with the mere technicalities,
and return to a design in accordance with the inner nature of things.
Monads are a mere technology, without explicatory power as a concept or pattern
For that reason
- discard the second expansion pattern implemented yesterday,
since it just raises the complexity level for no given reason
- write a summary of my findings while investigating the abilities
of Monads during this design excercise.
- the goal remains to abandon IterExplorer and use the now complete
IterTreeEplorer in its place. Which also defines roughly the extent
to wich monadic techniques can be useful for real world applications
...it can sensibly only be done within the Expander itself.
Question: is this nice-to-have-feature worth the additional complexity
of essentially loading two quite distinct code paths into a single
implementation object?
As it stands, this looks totally confusing to me...
At that time, our home-made Tuple type was replaced by std::tuple,
and then the command framework was extended to also allow command invocation
with arguments packaged as lib::diff::Record<GenNode>
With changeset 0e10ef09ec
A rebinding from std::tuple<ARGS...> to Types<ARGS> was introduced,
but unfortunately this was patched-in on top of the existing Types<ARGS...>
just as a partial specialisation.
Doing it this way is especially silly, since now this rebinding also kicks
in when std::tuple appears as regular payload type within Types<....>
This is what happened here: We have a Lambda taking a std::tuple<int, int>
as argument, yet when extracting the argument type, this rebinding kicks in
and transforms this argument into Types<int, int>
Oh well.
this leads to either unfolding the full tree depth-first,
or, when expanding eagerly, to delve into each sub-branch down to the leaf nodes
Both patterns should be simple to implement on top of what we've built already...
IterSource should be refactored to have an iteration control API similar to IterStateWrapper.
This would resolve the need to pass that pos-pointer over the abstraction barrier,
which is the root cause for all the problems and complexities incurred here
...but for now the price is that we need to punch a hole into IterAdapter.
And obviously, this is all way to tangled and complex on implementation level.
this was a design decision, but now I myself run into that obvious mistake;
thus not sure if this is a good design, or if we need a dedicated operation
to finish the builder and retrieve the iterable result.
as it turned out, when "inheriting" ctors, C++14 removes the base classes' copy ctors.
C++17 will rectify that. Thus for now we need to define explicitly that
we'll accept the base for initialising the derived. But we need do so
only on one location, namely the most down in the chain.
Since this now requires to import iter-adapter-stl.hpp and iter-source.hpp
at the same time, I decided to drop the convenience imports of the STL adapters
into namespace lib. There is no reason to prefer the IterSource-based adapters
over the iter-adapter-stl.hpp variants of the same functionality.
Thus better always import them explicitly at usage site.
...actual implementation of the planned IterSource packaging is only stubbed.
But I needed to redeclare a lot of ctors, which doesn't seem logical
And I get a bad function invocation from another test case which worked correct beforehand.
We need a way for higher layers to discard their caching and re-evaluate,
once some expansion layer was invoked to replace the current element with
its (functionally defined) "children" -- otherwise the first child will
remain obscured by what was there beforehand.
Solution is to pass such manipulation calls through the full chain of
decorators, allowing them to refresh themselves when necessary. To achieve
that technially, we add a base layer to absorb any such call passed down
through the whole decorator chain -- since we can not assume that the
parent, the original source core implements those manipualation calls
like expandChildren()
due to switching from ADL extension points to member functions,
we now need to detect a "state core" type in a different fashion.
The specific twist is that we can not spell out the full signature
in all cases, since the result type will be formed as a consequence
of this type detection. Thus there are now additional detectors to
probe for the presence of a specific function name only, and the
distinction between members and member functions has been sharpened.
Considering the fact that we are bound to introduce yet another iteration control function,
because there is literally no other way to cause a refresh within the IterTreeExplorer-Layers,
it is indicated to reconsider the way how IterStateWrapper attaches to the
iteration control API.
As it turns out, we'll never need an ADL-free function here;
and it seems fully adequate to require all "state core" objects to expose
the API as argument less member function. Because these reflect precisely
the contract of a "state core", so why not have them as member functions.
And as a nice extra, the implementation becomes way more concise in
all the cases refactored with this changeset!
Yet still, we stick to the basic design, *not* relying on virtual functions.
So this is a typical example of a Type Class (or "Concept" in C++ terminology)
- always layer the TreeExplorer (builder) on top of the stack
- always intersperse an IterableDecorator in between adjacent layers
- consequently...
* each layer implementation is now a "state core"
* and the source is now always a Lumiera Iterator
This greatly simplifies all the type rebindings and avoids the
ambiguities in argument converison. Basically now we can always convert
down, and we just need to pick the result type of the bound functor.
Downside is we have now always an adaptation wrapper in between,
but we can assume the compiler is able to optimise such inline
accessors away without overhead.
...yet this seems like a rather bad idea,
it breeds various problems and requires arcane trickery to make it fly
==> abandon this design
==> always intersperse an IterableDecorator between each pair of Layers
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"
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
