The actual trick to make it work is to use decltype on the function operator
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7943525/is-it-possible-to-figure-out-the-parameter-type-and-return-type-of-a-lambda/7943765#7943765
In addition, we now pick up the functor by template type and
store it under that very type. For one, this cuts the size
of the generated class by a factor of two. And it gives the
compiler the ability to inline a closure as much as is possible,
especially when the created Binder / Mutator lives in the same
reference frame the closure taps into.
to carry out that rather obvious step, I was bound to consider
all the implications of choosing a given layout and handling pattern
for our external structure representation.
Finally, I settled upon the following decisions
- the value space represented within the DataCap is flat, not further structured
- the distinction between "attribute" and "nested object" is merely conceptual
and will be enforced solely by the diff detection / representation protocol
- basically, a nested subtree may appear as an attribute; the difference
between attributes and children lies solely in the way of access and referral:
by-name vs. positional
- it is pointless to save space for the representation of the discriminator ID
- but we can omit any further explicit type tag, because
- we do *not* support programming by switch-on-type, and thus
- we do *not* support full introspection, only a passive type-safety check
- this is *not* a limitation, since we acknowledge that GenNode is a *Monad*
- and the partial function needed within any flatMap implementation
maps naturally onto our Variant-Visitor; thus
- the DataCap can basically just *be* a Variant
- and GenNode has just to supply the neccessary shaffolding
to turn that into a full fledged Monad implementation, including
direct construction by wrapping a value and flatMap with tree walk
All relevant uses will rely on the more strict access policy
implemented with the new util::AccessCasted. Along the same line
of thinking, I've removed the "second try" convenience conversion
from the typed get-Function of OpaqueHolder. Such an unbounded
"convert it somehow" approach is almost never a good idea. Either,
one knows by design the precise type to expect, or alternatively
should rely on the base interface solely.
...with the sole exception of the usage in WrapperPointer,
which in itself looks obsolete to me; we should better re-think
the way we handle "wrapped" objects for the BuilderTools, once
we actually start implementing the Builder
Ticket #450
Note: the new Variant implementation is a re-write from scratch
and does not rely on util::AccessCasted any more. Anyway, both
are now thoroughly covered by unit test
NOTE: this was a one-time verification. Unfortunately there is no way
to verify a failing compilation automatically from a unit-test.
Thus we need to comment out these invalid cases, leaving them
here just for later referral. Need to check those manually
for new compilers to be sure!
this overload will be picked only if none of the more specific
overloads is applicable. Instantiating this overload will then
trigger a static assertion failure. This way we sort out
impossible or dangerous combinations at compile time already.
I found no simple way to include the actual type parameters in
the generated error message (string concatenation at compiletime)
The throw-statement is only there to prevent a warning due
to missing return statement.
...since I consider that a comparatively safe convenience feature.
Of course we *do perform* a NULL check and throw an exception.
So now the actual casting or conversion functions are designed
to work always on the same level of references or pointers,
which means we can just use the standard conversions of the
language. This has the nice effect of ruling out dangerous
combinations (like taking a L-ref from a R-ref) automatically
(extracted from the git history of file try.cpp, May 2008)
basically this is the draft implementation from which
AccessCasted was extracted. I see two problems
- this version prints from within the access functions
- we do not want the automatic static downcast anymore.
meanwhile, I consider this kind of "do everything for me"
programming style as dangerous. If unchecked donwcasts
are desired, then code them up explicitly
TODO: might break some unit-tests...
Explanation: our wrapper around boost::format has special
built-in support for custom operator string(). Any type,
which is neiter standard, or printable through such a
custom string conversion, is represented as a type-string.
For this fallback case, we now use our recently added
demangling call (which actually relies on a rather obscure
but standard compiler API)
still passes compilation, but not actually tested.
The visitor-style accees needs to be implemented, and the
whole virtual copy support mechanism extracted into a separate
header and covered by unit test
now the solution with the copy policy class is in place,
I prefer to return to the more verbose yet clearer notion
of distinct constructors for each case on the outer and
the inner capsule likewise.
The idea with the separate builder class would be significant
only if this class would also provide the copy support. This
turns out to be difficult, due to the access restrictions
and the necessary passing of type parameters.
turns out to be quite a tough challenge....
since obviously we want to support usage of types with
partially disabled copy/assignment operations within Variant.
As long as the corresponding operations on the container aren't
invoked, we expect those types to be usable just fine.
The problem arises at the interaction with type erasure;
to support corret copy / assignement in such a situation, we need
virtual copy / assignment operators. And, since these are to be installed
into a VTable, the templated functions will be instantiated allways,
which might cause invocation of inhibited copy / assignement functions
and thus compilation failure, in spite of never actually invoking such
an illegal operation.
The drafted solution is to mix in a specifically configured copy support policy,
which at least raises a runtime error, instead of invoking the incriminating operation(s)
finally got all those copy / assgnment flavours straight.
Still unsolved: unable to instantiate the Variant template
for a type with private assignment operator (like e.g. Time )
The problem is our virtual assignement operator, which forces
instantiation of the implementation (for the VTable), even if
the actual assignment is never invoked.
- we do not want type mutations
- we do not want "empty" records ever
- we do not support "probing" for contents
- visitor style access for generic value handling
this was an immature first desgin attempt; we need a lightweight
Variant (typesafe union) implementation, so now is the time for
a second attempt. The existing Variant is used only once, and this
usage as such is in a questionable context, likely to be reworked
when we actually start coding up the builder. So I'll just move
it away and mark it @deprecated for the time being.
After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures,
but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain.
While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures,
in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the
storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable
right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler
sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual
generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the
given closures.
Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route
and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't
expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation
is not necessary and inline it away.
NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work.
And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect.
The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight.
Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every
participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of
"Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!)
implementation class for each participating setup, which takes
up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure
based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space
per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing
the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the
latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure
code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted
within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not
publickly exposed) scope.
so yes, it is complicated, and inevitably involves three layers
of indirection. The alternative seems to bind the GUI direcly to
the Session interface -- is there a middle gound?
For the messages from GUI to Proc, we have our commands, based
on PlacementRef entities. But for feeding model updates to the
GUI, whatever I consider, I end up either with diff messages or
an synchronised access to Session attributes, which ties the
responsiveness of the GUI to the Builder operation.
There is a long-standing RfC which basically describes the
same idea on a much wider, conceptual scope. Indeed I consider
this approach used here for solving the problem with GUI uptades
also as a proof of concept, to be expanded to a much wider scope
in case it works out well.
The new insight here is, that, by transferring a diff in pull mode,
we can circumvent the architectural problems with typing, which
showed up quite clearly in earlier design studies towards this
concept. The change from push to pull is by far not so fundamental
as it looks, since the sender still may initiate the exchange
by sending a message offering the diff iterator for the receiver
to pull. This way, we get a handshake and still sustain the
crucial part, which is to decouple the data representation
and give the receiver full control over the interpretation
of the exchanged data.
- we use a GenNode element
- this holds a polymorphic value known as DataCap
- besides simple attribute values, this may hold collections of GenNode sub elements
- a special kind of GenNode collection, the Record, is used to represent objects
The purpose of this setup is to enable an external model representation
which is only loosely coupled to the interndal data representation
through the exchange of (tree)diff messages
previously this operation was named 'attach', which an be confused
with attching an object to this location. Indeed, the session interface
even offers such an attach function. By renaming the focus moving
operation into QueryFocus::shift(Scope), this ambiguity is resolved
This is the first step towards a generic backbone to connect
any GUI elements to the session within Proc-Layer.
It is based on a spefic understanding of Model-View-Controller,
which turns the Model-Controller interactions into messages.
Remove some orphaned diagrams and PNG images not actually used
in the TiddlyWiki. Add a page with some hints regarding Bouml
See also #960 -- Bouml has been discontinued and is closed source now
not sure how to proceed with this
