static Messages IgnoreDateTimeOffset(Messages msgs)
{
// We don't care about the datetimeoffset.
var mapFunc = FSharpFuncUtil.ToFSharpFunc <Fake.ProcessHelper.ConsoleMessage, Fake.ProcessHelper.ConsoleMessage>(cm =>
new ProcessHelper.ConsoleMessage(cm.IsError, cm.Message, new DateTimeOffset()));
return(Microsoft.FSharp.Collections.ListModule.Map(mapFunc, msgs));
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Ag.initialize();
Aardvark.Base.Aardvark.Init();
using (var app = new OpenGlApplication())
{
var win = app.CreateSimpleRenderWindow(1);
var view = CameraView.LookAt(new V3d(2.0, 2.0, 2.0), V3d.Zero, V3d.OOI);
var perspective =
win.Sizes.Select(s => FrustumModule.perspective(60.0, 0.1, 10.0, ((float)s.X / (float)s.Y)));
var viewTrafo = DefaultCameraController.control(win.Mouse, win.Keyboard, win.Time, view);
var index = new[] { 0, 1, 2, 0, 2, 3 };
var positions = new[] { new V3f(-1, -1, 0), new V3f(1, -1, 0), new V3f(1, 1, 0), new V3f(-1, 1, 0) };
var attributes = new SymbolDict <Array>()
{
{ DefaultSemantic.Positions, positions }
};
var quad = new IndexedGeometry(IndexedGeometryMode.TriangleList,
(Array)index,
attributes,
new SymbolDict <Object>());
var quadSg = quad.ToSg();
// This is one of the hardest parts in C#. Our FShade interface is rather generic and
// works super awesome in F#. In C# however, without proper type inference doing simple function
// calls suddenly requires a Phd in CS. Therefore, and especially since shaders cannot be written
// in C# anyways, write application setup and shader code in F# ;)
// Or don't use FShade. FShade simply does not work in without functional language
// features such as type inference and function currying.
Func <DefaultSurfaces.Vertex, FSharpExpr <V4d> > whiteShader =
HighFun.ApplyArg0 <C4f, DefaultSurfaces.Vertex, FSharpExpr <V4d> >(
DefaultSurfaces.constantColor, C4f.White);
Func <DefaultSurfaces.Vertex, FSharpExpr <DefaultSurfaces.Vertex> > trafo = c => DefaultSurfaces.trafo(c);
var sg =
quadSg
.WithEffects(new[] {
FShadeSceneGraph.toEffect(FSharpFuncUtil.Create(trafo)),
FShadeSceneGraph.toEffect(FSharpFuncUtil.Create(whiteShader)),
})
.ViewTrafo(viewTrafo.Select(t => t.ViewTrafo))
.ProjTrafo(perspective.Select(t => t.ProjTrafo()));
var task = app.Runtime.CompileRender(win.FramebufferSignature, sg);
win.RenderTask = DefaultOverlays.withStatistics(task);
win.Run();
}
}
public void LoadVimRc2()
{
_fileSystem.Setup(x => x.GetVimRcDirectories()).Returns(new string[] { "foo" }).Verifiable();
_fileSystem.Setup(x => x.LoadVimRc()).Returns(FSharpOption <Tuple <string, string[]> > .None).Verifiable();
Assert.IsFalse(_vim.LoadVimRc(FSharpFuncUtil.Create <Unit, ITextView>(_ => null)));
Assert.AreEqual("", _settings.VimRc);
Assert.AreEqual("foo", _settings.VimRcPaths);
_fileSystem.Verify();
}
public void LoadVimRc2()
{
var fs = new Mock <IFileSystem>(MockBehavior.Strict);
fs.Setup(x => x.GetVimRcDirectories()).Returns(new string[] { "foo" }).Verifiable();
fs.Setup(x => x.LoadVimRc()).Returns(FSharpOption <Tuple <string, string[]> > .None).Verifiable();
Assert.IsFalse(_vim.LoadVimRc(fs.Object, FSharpFuncUtil.Create <Unit, ITextView>(_ => null)));
Assert.AreEqual("", _settings.VimRc);
Assert.AreEqual("foo", _settings.VimRcPaths);
fs.Verify();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
var inputModeChanger = new WinFormsInputModeChanger();
var bus = Init.buildVoid(inputModeChanger, Options.parse(args));
var view = new MainForm(bus, inputModeChanger);
bus.subscribe(FSharpFuncUtil.Create <CoreEvent, Message>(view.HandleEvent));
bus.subscribe(FSharpFuncUtil.Create <VMEvent, Message>(view.HandleViewModelEvent));
Init.launchVoid(bus);
Application.Run(view);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
#region Basic Mod usage
// Create a modref cell. can be changed via side effects
var input = new ChangeableValue <int>(10);
var output = input.Map(x => x * 2);
Console.WriteLine($"output was: {output}");
// Prints: output was Aardvark.Base.Incremental.ModModule+MapMod`2[System.Int32,System.Int32]
// not what we expected. Since mods are lazy and tostring does not force them we need
// to pull the value out of it.
Console.WriteLine($"output was: {output.GetValue()}"); // F# equivalent: Mod.force : aval<'a> -> 'a
// output was: 20
using (Adaptive.Transact)
{
input.Value = 20;
}
Console.WriteLine($"output was: {output.GetValue()}");
// output was: 40
// semantically, output now dependens on input declaratively.
// the dependency graph looks like:
//
// (x) => x * 2
// input ----------------> output
// mods are nodes, and the edges are annotated with transition functions.
// Users of Rx might see the pattern. outputs is an observer, while input is observable.
// so the systems are equivalent ?! but mod must be better - otherwise this tutorial is useless right?
#endregion
#region Obserable semantics
// A modref could be an observable which never ends and has an initial value.
var inputObs = new Subject <int>();
inputObs.OnNext(10);
var outputObs = inputObs.Select(x => x * 2);
var globalStore = 0;
var sideEffectToObserve = outputObs.Subscribe(x => globalStore = x);
Console.WriteLine($"outputObs was: {globalStore}");
// outputObs was: 0
// unexpected? no. this is due to subscription semantics.
// Note: ReplaySubject instead of subject has right semantics although i have doubts about memory leaks.
inputObs.OnNext(10);
Console.WriteLine($"outputObs was: {globalStore}");
// outputObs was: 20
inputObs.OnNext(20);
Console.WriteLine($"outputObs was: {globalStore}");
// outputObs was: 40
// what happens if we have data flow graphs with sinks (2 ingoing edges conceptually)
var inputA = new Subject <int>();
var inputB = new Subject <int>();
var reexCount = 0;
inputA.Merge(inputB).Subscribe(x =>
{
reexCount++;
Console.WriteLine($"a+b was: {x}");
});
inputA.OnNext(1);
inputB.OnNext(2);
Console.WriteLine($"reexCount was: {reexCount}");
// reexCount was: 2
// did you expect 2? of course. this is the semantics of merge.
// what iff we only want to have a batch change, say, change 2 inputs simultationusly?
// then we need different semantics.
var inputA3 = new Subject <int>();
var inputB3 = new Subject <int>();
reexCount = 0;
inputA3.SelectMany(a =>
inputB3.Select(b =>
{
reexCount++;
return(a + b);
}
)
).Subscribe(r =>
Console.WriteLine($"result was: {r} reexCount was: {reexCount}")
);
inputA3.OnNext(1);
inputB3.OnNext(2);
// result was: 3 reexCount was: 1
// If we switch to replay subject we get 2 again...
var inputA2 = new ReplaySubject <int>();
var inputB2 = new ReplaySubject <int>();
reexCount = 0;
inputA2.SelectMany(a =>
inputB2.Select(b =>
{
reexCount++;
return(a + b);
}
)
).Subscribe(r =>
Console.WriteLine($"result was: {r} reexCount was: {reexCount}")
);
inputA2.OnNext(1);
inputB2.OnNext(2);
// result was: 3 reexCount was: 2
// Let us see how this looks like in Mod:
reexCount = 0;
var inputAM = new ChangeableValue <int>(1);
var inputBM = new ChangeableValue <int>(2);
var aPlusB = inputAM.Map(inputBM,
(a, b) => {
reexCount++;
return(a + b);
});
Console.WriteLine($"mod,a+b was: {aPlusB.GetValue()}, reexCount: {reexCount}");
// mod,a+b was: 3, reexCount: 1
// special note: Select2 was not defined at the time or writing of this tutorial, but
// it is available in F#. How could we access the F# verion?
var aPlusB2 = FSharp.Data.Adaptive.AValModule.map2(FSharpFuncUtil.Create <int, int, int>((a, b) => a + b), inputAM, inputBM);
// steps required:
// (1) F# map2 is defined in Mod module. usage Mod.map2 (+) a b
// so we need this map module. by convention, modules with colliding type names
// are exported with the module suffix. so the function lives in ModModule.
// (2) our f# function wants a f# function and not an instance of type System.Func. use a conversion
// (3) C# has no real type inference, so most of the time you'll need to annotate stuff.
// that is - we just used a f# function with no c# friendly interface in c#.
Console.WriteLine($"mod,a+b was: {aPlusB2.GetValue()}, reexCount: {reexCount}");
reexCount = 0;
using (Adaptive.Transact)
{
inputAM.Value = 20;
inputBM.Value = 30;
}
Console.WriteLine($"mod,a+b was: {aPlusB.GetValue()}, reexCount: {reexCount}");
// mod,a+b was: 50, reexCount: 1
// so we have batch changes in the mod system. but this is cheating, right?
// because we used an optimized combinator which does this, right?
// we can do a low level implementation instead.
var aPlusBBind = inputAM.Bind(a => inputBM.Map(b =>
{
reexCount++;
return(a + b);
}));
reexCount = 0;
using (Adaptive.Transact)
{
inputAM.Value = 20;
inputBM.Value = 30;
}
Console.WriteLine($"modbind,a+b was: {aPlusBBind.GetValue()}, reexCount: {reexCount}");
// modbind,a+b was: 50, reexCount: 1
// interesting. also here we have tight reexecution count.
reexCount = 0;
using (Adaptive.Transact)
{
inputAM.Value = 20;
inputBM.Value = 30;
}
Console.WriteLine($"modbind2,a+b was: {aPlusBBind.GetValue()}, reexCount: {reexCount}");
// modbind2,a + b was: 50, reexCount:0
// aha - we have reexCount=0 because the change was a pseudo change (values changed to old values)
/*
* So what is the result of this analysis? Rx has precise semantics. You get what you want. But
* you need to know how you want it and there are many solutions.
* So Mod is the same as observable, but can do less because we do not have precise control about
* reexecution semantics (although semantics seems to be nice, right)?
*/
// One could use the mod system as strange implementation of observable of course.
var inputEvil = new ChangeableValue <int>(10);
var outputEvil = new ChangeableValue <int>(0);
var sub = inputEvil.AddCallback(i =>
{
using (Adaptive.Transact)
{
outputEvil.Value = i * 2;
}
});
using (Adaptive.Transact)
{
inputEvil.Value = 20;
}
Console.WriteLine($"evilCallback: {outputEvil.GetValue()}");
// evilCallback: 40
/* so this works. but this is evil.
* /* this code has no dependency graph. all is modelled via side effects.
* /* The following list sponsored by gh gives some reasons against callbacks:
* 1) The Mod-system is capable of handling those callbacks but their cost is massive compared to Rx
* 2) Callbacks tend to keep their closure alive(causing memory leaks)
* 3) Callbacks are hard to debug
* 4) Eager evaluation wastes time (by design and especially when using the mod-system)
* 5) Concurrency is not controlled in any way
* 6) Callers of transact suddenly block until their callbacks finish(deadlock scenarios etc.)
* 7) Rx was already invented (so why exploit our system to simulate it) */
#endregion
/*
* So finally, the answer is: NO
* Rx and Mod is something completly different.
* - Mod is lazy / Obs pushes values to their subscribers immediately
* - Mods have batch changes intrinsic to the system / in Obs semantics depends on combinators
* - Mods build dependency graphs and try to reduce recomputation overhead / Obs don't care about algorithmic complexity, Obs cannot be used to implement adaptive data structures
* - Mods have on goal: make the outputs consistent iff they are demaned. / Obs populates all values according to the combinators used (e.g. merge)
*/
// As a result there are many things which do not fit to observables, others do not fit to mods.
// Given this list, Mods are particularly not immediately usable for tracking changes manually.
var resendOverNetwork = new ChangeableValue <bool>(false);
inputEvil.AddCallback(s =>
{
using (Adaptive.Transact)
{
resendOverNetwork.Value = true;
}
}
);
resendOverNetwork.AddCallback(_ =>
{
inputEvil.GetValue().ToString(); // send new contents of inputEvil
});
// UnsafeRegisterCallbackNoGcRoot is a hack in the system to allow unproblematic side effects
// to be coupled with reecution. The exeuction of order of callbacks, especially callbacks
// which run callbacks via transactions is highly unspecified. In fact
// UnsafeRegisterCallbackNoGcRoot has no defined semantics.
// One little note: (in the current implementation) all callbacks are executed eventuallly, but maybe to often.
// This is very comparable to LINQ mixed with side effects. LINQ has lazy evaluation and using
// side effects inside is just nonesense. Fortunately LINQ has no public cheat API --- one cannot
// simply "side-effect" elements into an existing enumerable sequence
// (ok we can but peoply luckily rarely mix side effects with linq because meijer said it is evil [1]).
// [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuamC0T3hv8
// Of course we could restrict the mod API (by removing callbacks), but
// we still wanted ways to do unsafe stuff (in less than 0.01% of the code).
// At this point we shall mention that the complete rendering backend works without callbacks,
// but rendering things could be as well considered as rather imperative problem.
// If you really want to attach callbacks to some mod, maybe either:
// (1) the problem does not fit the declarative incremental computation modlel
// (2) the problem fits, but some parts of the current solution are not delcarative (either because of (1), because of hacks or other non-declarative parts)
/* You know might think: "Why all this complexity. Why not just use Observables where
* appropriate and ad hoc techniques when they not work as nice as they should. I pretty
* lived quite good the last years without a mod system and this stuff".
* Cases in which the mod system is a good fit can greatly benefit from the usage of mods.
* The changes are not local, but having a mod system at hand completely changes the way
* on can structure programs. In fact, i think programming with mods is a completely different
* paradigm. So Take your time and help us making the libraries better.
*/
}
