`PolymorphicValue` incurs some quite confusing requirements due to
the clumsy way how the instance handling and copy support must be injected.
As pointed out in #1197, with modern C++, this could be much simplified.
An overhaul of `PolymorphicValue` seems urgent thus -- in the meanwhile
we need to introduce more flexibiltiy with base-class template parameters,
so that we can inject the CopySupport interface at usage site of the
complete implementation class chain. Furthermore, the size of the VTable
is added automatically to the storage requirements in `PolymorphicValue`,
so we must subtract it when specifying the payload size by a compile-time
expression based on `sizeof(ParamData<double>)`
With these tweaks, we can now keep the limit of 4 «slots» (32 bytes)
and still reserve 64bit for ID and type flags.
The solution from yesterday works, but is needlessly indirect.
However, if we want to circumvent ''any indirection'' in the
simple standard case, then it turns out to be necessary to
have some kind of ''flag store'' already in the `Disposition`
(the implementation service interface). Because otherwise
it would be impossible to trigger the short-circuit access
without going through some kind of indirection.
Need to define a generic ID-Record with some flexible extension space
that can be used by subclasses; and notably we need to generate some
base-type-IDs on a static level -- which should be possible, since all
allowed BaseTypes are defined as Type-Sequence.
Add value access implementation of the Provision interface
by direct cast and access to the embedded value in `ParamData<VAL>`;
obviously this is an indirect dispatch, based on the actual type `VAL`
The test demonstrates the basic machinery built thus far
- have an embedded container with inline storage
- dispatch using type information encoded into the VTable
- `Disposition` is the service-API used by the front-End container
- `ParamData<TY>` is a complete implementation with a inline-value buffer
- The front-End is based on the `PolymorphicValue` container from our support-Lib
While the role of all the relevant interfaces has been determined,
it still remains difficult to establish a sensible relationship.
Which one is the most fundamental interface?
After a lot of mulling, it seems that the `Provision` interface
should be used as foundation, since it describes the very core
of the parameter concept developed here -- even while the actual
form of the operations must be ''somewhat cunningly reversed'',
so that the knowledge regarding the underlying type can be
kept an opaque implementation detail.
The `Domain` interface would then be layered on top, and describes
the capability to transfer values between buffers marked with different
domains (which effectively requires a double-dispatch in the general case).
Parameters and Automation will certainly play a crucial role eventually.
They will form a network of relationships to cover all further concerns that can not directly be conceptualised as arrangement or processing.
A shift in the setup of the Job-Functor arguments necessitates to introduce a `Parameter` type — ''albeit just as placeholder''
