A fresh session had no way to learn the handoff existed: AGENTS.md named
only docs/PLAN.md, and the filename tied the document to one piece of work.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Both gestures, since two widths in turn flatters a store and a drag does
not, and the memory beside the time: the question that decided the shape
of it was whether it is a fixed cost or one per text widget.
Bring LAYOUT.md's §1 and §2 to what shipped. A widget returns its size
rather than recording it, a slot carries a box rather than a
translation, and the per-axis answer is `OnResize` rather than
`is_size_independent` -- and the constraint the position chain replaced
was an agent's, which the text now says.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The random generator grew during the work, so the seed that names a
1061-widget tree in the pre-#16 rows names a 144-widget one now. Every
"still N times the old resize" here was measured across that change and
says nothing; a hand-written fixture that compiles on both revisions
says the old code is 2.2x cheaper and puts a paragraph outside the
output, for two reasons it records as deliberate.
Record what a resize frame is actually spent on -- 63% text, 0.9%
draw_inner -- and what removing the single-entry shaping and placement
caches measures at.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The random tree at depth 7 measured against the two revisions before it: the
GPU pass is a tenth of a millisecond everywhere, and every difference is the
CPU laying out. A repaint of one leaf costs 1313 draws and 6.5 ms where the
pre-#16 code cost one draw, because `redraw` escalates to the top size reader
before knowing whether the size changed at all. Drawing first and escalating
only on a different size takes that to one draw and takes a resize below the
pre-#16 number, but misplaces four widgets in the resize case, so it is the
owner's to call.
Also records the measure-by-drawing multiplier -- 1.3x the drawn widgets at
depth 4, 5.2x at depth 8 -- and that scrolling is now part of the random
trees.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
And the open question beside it: a slot that carries a box rather than a
translation, which would make a move and a stretch of a Scale subtree
one write each. To be measured with chain_cost before it is chosen.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Incremental edits had spliced the opening section into two half-sentences and
left it saying main was at the commit before last. It is now written as where
things are: two open PRs, the harness as the next slice, the renderer's
invariants rather than the story of how they arrived, and the three render
checks described rather than pointed at a script in /tmp.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The owner asked for library updates and core framework changes first, so code
is only written once, and for tests to arrive with a slice rather than as
scripts outside the repository. So wgpu 28 -> 30 and the headless rig and
harness come before any of the feature slices.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
iris-aiandClaude Opus 5
iris