This makes them cheap to move around, since we can store them in a
NonnullOwnPtr instead of memcopying 2584(!) bytes.
Drastically reduces the chance of stack overflow while building the
layout tree for deeply nested DOMs (since tree building was putting
these things on the stack).
This change also exposed a completely unnecessary ComputedValues deep
copy in block layout.
It returns a PaintableBox (a PaintableWithLines, to be specific), not a
'PaintBox'. paintable_box() without the cast is already available
through BlockContainer's Box base class, we don't need to shadow it.
This simplifies the ownership model between DOM/layout/paint nodes
immensely by deferring to the garbage collector for figuring out what's
live and what's not.
Everything related to hit testing is better off using the painting tree.
The thing being mousemoved over is a paintable, so let's hand that out
directly instead of the corresponding layout node.
Input events have nothing to do with layout, so let's not send them to
layout nodes.
The job of Paintable starts to become clear. It represents a paintable
item that can be rendered into the viewport, which means it can also
be targeted by the mouse cursor.
This patch adds a bunch of Paintable subclasses, each corresponding to
the Layout::Node subclasses that had a paint() override. All painting
logic is moved from layout nodes into their corresponding paintables.
Paintables are now created by asking a Layout::Box to produce one:
static NonnullOwnPtr<Paintable> Layout::Box::create_paintable()
Note that inline nodes still have their painting logic. Since they
are not boxes, and all paintables have a corresponding box, we'll need
to come up with some other solution for them.
BlockContainer paint boxes are the only ones that have line boxes
associated, so let's not waste memory on line boxes in all the other
types of boxes.
This also adds Layout::Box::paint_box() and the more tightly typed
Layout::BlockContainer::paint_box() to get at the paint box from the
corresponding layout box.
The "paintable" state in Layout::Box was actually not safe to access
until after layout had been performed.
As a first step towards making this harder to mess up accidentally,
this patch moves painting information from Layout::Box to a new class:
Painting::Box. Every layout can have a corresponding paint box, and
it holds the final used metrics determined by layout.
The paint box is created and populated by FormattingState::commit().
I've also added DOM::Node::paint_box() as a convenient way to access
the paint box (if available) of a given DOM node.
Going forward, I believe this will allow us to better separate data
that belongs to layout vs painting, and also open up opportunities
for naturally invalidating caches in the paint box (since it's
reconstituted by every layout.)
This patch adds a map of Layout::Node to FormattingState::NodeState.
Instead of updating layout nodes incrementally as layout progresses
through the formatting contexts, all updates are now written to the
corresponding NodeState instead.
At the end of layout, FormattingState::commit() is called, which
transfers all the values from the NodeState objects to the Node.
This will soon allow us to perform completely non-destructive layouts
which don't affect the tree.
Note that there are many imperfections here, and still many places
where we assign to the NodeState, but later read directly from the Node
instead. I'm just committing at this stage to make subsequent diffs
easier to understand.
Now that we build lines incrementally, we no longer need the atomic line
splitting API.
The new InlineLevelIterator and LineBuilder setup does have some
regressions from the old behavior, but we can deal with them as we go.
Per the spec, only a BlockContainer" can have line boxes, so let's not
clutter up every Layout::Box with line boxes.
This also allows us to establish an invariant that BFC and IFC always
operate on a Layout::BlockContainer.
Note that if BlockContainer has all block-level children, its line boxes
are not used for anything. They are only used in the all inline-level
children scenario.
There's a subtle difference here. A "block box" in the spec is a
block-level box, while a "block container" is a box whose children are
either all inline-level boxes in an IFC, or all block-level boxes
participating in a BFC.
Notably, an "inline-block" box is a "block container" but not a "block
box" since it is itself inline-level.
