How to access inherited class attribute from a third class? - c++

The goal of the code structure below is to be able to store pointers to objects of any class inherited from 'A'.
When I run this code, I get 0 written out, but what I'm trying to access is the 'B' object's 'num' value, which is 1. How can I do that?
As far as I know, when you create an inherited class's object, you create an object of the parent class too automatically. So can I somehow access the parent class object from it's child and set it's class member to match?
See minimal reproducible example below.
Update: Virtual functions solved the problem.
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
int num;
A()
{
num = 0;
}
};
class B : public A
{
public:
int num;
B()
{
num = 1;
}
};
class C
{
public:
A* ptr_array[2];
C()
{
ptr_array[0] = new B();
}
void print()
{
std::cout << ptr_array[0]->num << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
C* object_c = new C();
object_c->print();
return 0;
}

The problem is that you define a member num in A, and another member num in B. So an object of type B has two members called num, and you're leaving it to the compiler to choose which one to use -- which it does, according to logical rules which may be unfamiliar to you.
If you remove the line in num; from the definition of B, the code will work as you intend.

Your array is a red herring. You are only using one pointer. Might just as well have it as a member for the sake of the example.
I suppose you might need something like this (note, untested code).
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
A() : m_num(0) {} // use this instead of assignment in the c'tor body
virtual int getNum() { return m_num; } // this is **the** way to use inheritance
virtual ~A() = default; // required
private:
int m_num;
};
class B : public A {
public:
B() : m_otherNum(1) {}
virtual int getNum() { return m_otherNum; } // does something different from A
private:
int m_otherNum; // you could also call it m_num, but for clarity I use a different name
};
class C {
public:
C() : m_a (std::make_unique<B>()) {} // note, use this instead of new B
void print() {
std::cout << m_a->getNum() << std::endl;
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<A> m_a; // note, use this instead of A* m_a;
};
I have no way of knowing if this is really what you need (or you think you need). This is how inheritance is supposed to be used in object-oriented programming. You can use it in various other ways and produce correct (as far as the language definition is concerned) programs. But if this is the case, then (public) inheritance is likely not the best tool for the job.

Related

why am I able to call grandparent method with grandchild object? I read that it was not possible

This is the code I got from the internet...
and how virtual keyword is working?
i think this virtual keyword has something to do with this behaviour but I don't understand what it is.
class A {
int x;
public:
A(int i) { x = i; }
void print() { cout << x; }
};
class B : virtual public A {
public:
B()
: A(10)
{
}
};
class C : virtual public A {
public:
C()
: A(10)
{
}
};
class D : public B, public C {
};
int main()
{
D d;
d.print();
return 0;
}
why am I able to call grandparent method with grandchild object?
Because that is how inheritance works. That member function was inherited by the child class and the grand child.
I read that it was not possible
Either what you read is wrong or you misunderstood it.
how virtual keyword is working?
When a virtual base occurs multiple times in a hierarchy, those occurrences are combined into a single base sub object.
In the case of D, the base A of B and the base A of C are the same base which would not be the case if the inheritance wasn't virtual.
You can be right in your assumption, but it is not that easy.
print is declared as a public member function. Since you derive every class with public, you still can call print from your D class object.
If you desire your described behaviour, one way is, you have to rewrite your class
class A {
int x;
public:
A(int i) { x = i; }
private:
void print() { cout << x; }
};
You should study the topic of 'inheritance'. You can start with that ARTICLE.
In general a diamond class structure points to bad software design. Yeah there may be some good reasons to create something like that. But judging the type of the question, you should really forget about that and avoid it. Unless you are really sure about what you are doing.
The structure you found is described here.

Set a value of a class from another class

I'm trying to set the value of a member of a class from another class using this snippet. Here is a sample of the code I'm trying to make work
class A
{
private:
int a;
public:
A()
{
a = 0;
}
A(int val)
{
a = val;
}
int GetA()
{
return a;
}
void SetA()
{
a = 290;
}
};
class B
{
B(){};
void SetB()
{
A a;
a.SetA();
}
};
int main(){
A a;
B b;
b.SetB();
cout << b.GetA();
}
How can I make this code pint out 290.I currently prints out 0
In SetB your A variable is a temporary that is destroyed when the function returns.
The way it is written in your snippet, your code won't compile, because B has no method GetA(). From your use case (the code in main()), I suspect you either want B to inherit from A:
class B : public A
{
public:
B() {];
void SetB()
{
SetA();
}
};
although that doesn't make too much sense, because in this case you could just call b.SetA() directly. Or, you want an object of type A as a member of B:
class B
{
public:
void SetB()
{
a.SetA();
}
int GetA()
{
return a.GetA();
}
private:
A a;
};
But it's a bit hard to tell from your snippet what you're actually trying to achieve.
Also, you probably want your Get…() methods to be const.
If you;re trying to achieve what I think you're trying to achieve then you're nearly there, it is just that you are creating two versions of A, one on the main stack, and one that is a temporary inside B::SetA()
try passing A as a reference parameter to B, so that there is only one version of A.
void SetB(A& a)
{
a.SetA();
}
then your calling code would be:
A a;
B b;
b.SetB(a);
cout << a.GetA();
Alternatively, pass a in the constructor of B and store A as a reference member in B;

Creating derived class instance using base class instance

I have a base class instance, there is a derived class that inherits from the base class, I want to transform the base instance into derived instance, (if possible without copying anything (maybe sending to the derived class a reference of the base class)) how can I achieve that?
Note: I need this because I'm using factory design pattern which identify the derived class needed to be created using a parameter located in the base instance.
//class A
//class B: public A (pure virtual)
//class C: public B
B BFactory::makeB(A &a) {
int n=a.getN();
if(n==1){
return new C();
}
}
Thanks.
Consider the case of the car.
You can treat a Lamborghini as a car.
You can treat a Yugo as a car.
You can treat a car as a Lamborghini if it is a Lamborghini. In C++ this means a pointer to car that really points to a Lamborghini. In order to get a Lamborghini pointer back out of the car pointer you should use dynamic_cast. If the car does not point to a Lamborghini, dynamic_cast will return NULL. This keeps you from trying to pass off a Yugo as a Lamborghini and blowing the Yugo's engine.
But when the Lamborghini is being treated as a car, it can only do car things. If you copy a Lamborghini into a car, you strip out all Lamborghini-ness forever. It's gone.
Code time!
This, I'm afraid cannot be done:
//class A
//class B: public A (pure virtual)
//class C: public B
B BFactory::makeB(A &a) {
int n=a.getN();
if(n==1){
return new C();
}
}
C is being copied into a B and the B is being returned. B would need a constructor that took a C, but the point is moot. B cannot be instantiated if it's pure virtual. For now we'll ignore the leak that would be new C()
Also can't use a reference for this job, pretty much the same problem, so you're trapped into returning a pointer
B * BFactory::makeB(A &a) {
int n=a.getN();
if(n==1){
return new C();
}
}
Now I'm going to make a suggestion: Build the make function into B and handle the case where A doesn't map to anything recognized by B.
class B: public A
{
public:
virtual ~B(){}
static B * makeB(A & a)
{
switch(a.getN())
{
case 1:
return new C();
}
return NULL;
}
};
But this leads to another recommendation: Why should B know anything? And What is the point of A at this level? Why is A storing build codes for classes two or more steps down the hierarchy? Bad from a maintenance point of view. The point of objects is they know who they are and how to manipulate themselves. Short-circuiting this leads to pain.
class B: public A
{
public:
virtual ~B(){}
virtual B* makeB() = 0;
};
Now B only makes Bs, needs no help from A, and those who extend B are stuck with figuring out how to make themselves--a task they should know better than anyone else. Much safer because there is never any possibility of a code unrecognised by B for a new class.
class C: public B
{
public:
B* makeB()
{
return new C();
}
};
class D: public B
{
public:
B* makeB()
{
return new D();
}
};
Edit: Traditional factory
You're asking for an abstract factory. For that you need nothing. You don't even need a class. You certainly don't need a class A. The goal of this sort of factory is the caller knows nothing about the class. By providing an A, the caller needs to know how to make an A or have another factory that makes an A.
First a bit of set-up in a header file BFactory.h:
#ifndef BFACTORY_H_
#define BFACTORY_H_
#include <exception>
class B
{
public:
virtual ~B(){}
virtual std::string whatAmI() = 0;
protected:
// data members common to all B subclasses
};
enum bType
{
gimmie_a_C,
gimmie_a_D,
gimmie_an_E
};
class BadTypeException: public std::exception
{
public:
const char* what() const noexcept
{
return "Dude! WTF?!?";
}
};
B* BFactory(enum bType type);
#endif /* BFACTORY_H_ */
Here I'm going to deviate from the book way a little. Rather than using an integer to identify the type to be built, I'm going to use an enum. Two reasons: Easier to read and understand gimme_a_C than 1 and generates a compiler error if you try to provide a value that is not enumerated.
enum bType
{
gimmie_a_C,
gimmie_a_D,
gimmie_an_E
};
And an exception to flag stupidity if the enum is updated with new types (gimmie_an_E) but the factory is not.
class BadTypeException: public std::exception
{
public:
const char* what() const noexcept
{
return "Dude! WTF?!?";
}
};
This is all the Factory client needs to see. They don't see C. They don't see D. They have no clue that C and D exist in any way other than the names listed in enum bType. All they ever see is pointers to B.
Now for the implementation BFactory.cpp:
#include "BFactory.h"
class C:public B
{
std::string whatAmI()
{
return "C";
}
};
class D:public B
{
std::string whatAmI()
{
return "D";
}
};
B* BFactory(enum bType type)
{
switch(type)
{
case gimmie_a_C:
return new C();
case gimmie_a_D:
return new C();
default:
throw BadTypeException();
}
}
I'll leave it up to the reader to spot the stupid bug in the above code that makes these error prone and why I don't like them.
And usage, main.cpp:
#include "BFactory.h"
int main()
{
B * temp;
temp = BFactory(gimmie_a_C);
std::cout << temp->whatAmI() << std::endl;
delete temp;
temp = BFactory(gimmie_a_D);
std::cout << temp->whatAmI() << std::endl;
delete temp;
//temp = BFactory(1001); // won't compile
try
{
temp = BFactory(gimmie_an_E); // will compile, throws exception
std::cout << temp->whatAmI() << std::endl;
}
catch(BadTypeException& wtf)
{
std::cerr << wtf.what() << std::endl;
}
}
There is still absolutely no use for or involvement of A. A if it exists, should no nothing about B or the children of B.
These days there is a little improvement we can make so that the pointers are a little safer. unique_ptr allows us to maintain the polymporphic advantages of a pointer to B without the memory management woes.
std::unique_ptr<B> BFactory(enum bType type)
{
switch(type)
{
case gimmie_a_C:
return std::unique_ptr<B>(new C());
case gimmie_a_D:
return std::unique_ptr<B>(new D());
default:
throw BadTypeException();
}
}
and the new main:
int main()
{
std::unique_ptr<B> temp;
temp = BFactory(gimmie_a_C);
std::cout << temp->whatAmI() << std::endl;
temp = BFactory(gimmie_a_D);
std::cout << temp->whatAmI() << std::endl;
}
You might want to define a constructor that takes the base class instance as the argument so you can later use static_cast to convert from the base class to the derived class.
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
Derived(const Base& base) : Base{base} {}
};
int main()
{
Base a;
Derived b = static_cast<Derived>(a);
}
If you want to create a derived class instance using the base class instance then there is some conversion rule between the two, which you can specify explicitly using a derived class constructor.
Although it is impossible to alter the type of an object you still can make instances of base and derived classes share the same data:
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
class Base
{
protected:
struct CommonData
{
int A;
int B;
};
std::shared_ptr<CommonData> m_data;
public:
Base() : m_data(std::make_shared<CommonData>())
{
m_data->A = 0;
m_data->B = 0;
}
void SetData(Base * source)
{
m_data = source->m_data;
}
int A() const { return m_data->A; }
int B() const { return m_data->B; }
void SetA(int value) { m_data->A = value; }
void SetB(int value) { m_data->B = value; }
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
int C;
};
using namespace std;
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
Base base;
base.SetA(12);
base.SetB(46);
Derived derived;
derived.SetData(&base);
derived.C = 555;
cout << derived.A() << endl; // 12
cout << derived.C << endl; // 555;
cin.get();
}
A base class should not "know" about how to make its own derived class instances. That is the point of inheritance.
The "is a" relationship of derived classes means that any subclass instance will pass as a base class instance transparently, and you can treat it as one, and by default base class non-virtual methods are called on a base class reference, even if it a derived class instance. Only virtual methods use the derived class method.
In the case of creating a base class instance from a derived class you want to "slice" the instance data (normally a bad thing and normally a mistake).
class A{ // ... A stuff };
class B : A
{ // ... B stuff
A make_A() { return (A) B(*this); } // copy cast to A
};
Under no circumstances try to do this:
class B;
class A { // ...
B make_B() { return B(*this); }
};
That is inverted OO logic. It requires at least 2 scans of the source code, which C++ does not do. It fails.

Override pointer-to-member-function

I have these two classes:
class A {
public:
A() { m_ptr = NULL; }
void (*m_ptr)();
void a() { if (m_ptr) m_ptr(); }
};
class B : public A {
public:
B() { m_ptr = b; }
void b() {
std::cout << "B::b() is called" << std::endl;
}
};
And I want to use them like this:
B b;
b.a();
and get the following to be called B::b().
Of course this is not being compiled as B::b is not of type void(*)().
How can I make it work?
UPDATE. To whom who asks "why?" and "what for?".
The class A is a very basic class which has many successors in production code. The class B is 6-th successor and I want to extend A (the most convinient place) to call there one more method (from B) which can be present and may be not in another successors af A and B.
A virtual method with empty body can be employed for that but it is ugly and I want to avoid it. Abstract method even more so (because of existing derived successors code).
I don't want to use external function of type void (*)() to not loose access to internal data of all hierarchy.
You can't make it work as your classes are defined now.
Calling a non-static member function of another class requires an instance of that class. You either need to store a reference to the object that owns the member function when storing the function pointer, or pass a reference to the object when you make the call to A::a.
You also need to declare m_ptr with the type void (B::*)(), which is pointer to member of B that is a function taking no parameters and returning void.
Look at this example:
class A {
public:
A() { m_ptr = nullptr; }
void a(B& b) { if (m_ptr) (b.*m_ptr)(); } // Now takes reference to B object.
void (B::*m_ptr)(); // Pointer to member function of B.
};
class B : public A {
public:
B() { m_ptr = &B::b; } // Adress of qualified function.
void b() {
std::cout << "B::b() is called" << std::endl;
}
};
Now we can call B::b like this:
B b;
b.a(b); // Pass reference to b when calling.
Your use of inheritence in this way is confusing as it implies that the real problem you are trying to solve is to invoka a member of a derived class through the base class. This is usually accomplished using a simple virtual function like this:
class A {
public:
virtual ~A() {}
void a() const { b(); } // Call b.
private:
virtual void b() const {}
};
class B : public A {
public:
virtual void b() const override { // C++11 override specifier (optional).
std::cout << "B::b() is called" << std::endl;
}
};
And used like this:
B b;
b.a(); // B::b is called.
Well, probably not the purpose of this exercise, but you can simply declare static void b() if you want to make it work.
Another option is to declare friend void b(), but then the "B::b() is called" printout would be stating a wrong fact.
I would suggest using CRTP since you want to avoid virtual mechanism. Note, however, your code might require some design changes to accommodate this pattern. But it does provide type safety and has no run-time overhead. Hope it helps.
Code on ideone.com:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
namespace so {
class B;
template<typename T>
class A {
public:
template<typename U = T, typename = typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, B>::value>::type>
void foo_A() {
std::cout << "foo_A : ";
static_cast<U *>(this)->foo_B();
}
};
class B: public A<B> {
public:
void foo_B() {
std::cout << "foo_B" << std::endl;
}
};
class C: public A<C> {
public:
void foo_C() {
std::cout << "foo_C" << std::endl;
}
};
} // namespace so
int main() {
so::B b_;
so::C c_;
b_.foo_A();
b_.foo_B();
//c_.foo_A(); Compile error: A<C>::foo_A() does not exist!
c_.foo_C();
return (0);
}
Program output:
foo_A : foo_B
foo_B
foo_C

c++ redefining types in subclasses and slicing

#include <string>
#include <iostream>
class a { public: int x;};
class b : public a {public: int x; } ;
int main()
{
b bee;
bee.x = 3;
a ay = bee;
std::cout << std::endl << ay.x << std::endl;
}
The code above compiles fine in clang 3.0 and g++ 4.5. However the output is junk (--i.e., not three). Since the compiler doesn't seem to mind, how do I get the code to behave ?
Secondly, If there is some way to make the above slice / conversion to work correctly, how bad would it be if I then did the following, provided a good reason to do it exists :
class c : public a { public: uint64_t x; };
Why I am interested in these semantics.
The reason I want to do this is this. I have a two class heirachies, where one heirarchy (the parent) aggregages objects, on the same heirarchy level, from the other(the child). I use a custom container for the aggregation. I want to typedef the container in the parent class (the typedefs have the same name), and declare the container with the same name at each level of the parent.
The class heirarchies are designed to contain less information at lower levels ( the base classes hold the least), therefore slicing makes perfect sense here.
Edit:
There you go, this should clear things up.
class A { int x; };
class B : public A {int y;};
class Ap {std::vector<A> entries;};
class Bp : Ap{std::vector<B> entries;};
The child B has more members than the child class A. However, I wan't to present a uniform interface for code that is only interested in the members of class A.
There is no way to do that if you directly set b::x. a::x and b::x are two different members, and the latter hides the former.
You can still access a::x on an object of type b with static_cast<a&>(bee).x = 3, but the fundamental problem is that the values of a::x and b::x on an object of type b are not synchronized.
If you abstract access to both x members with a "property getter/setter", then you can arrange for the setter on the derived class to also update the member of the base class. Or (maybe this is more appropriate?) you can make the member of the base class protected and use it from the derived class directly, slicing as you need just before returning from the getter.
huh ! its a bit complicated no ?
why don't you use :
class a
{
virtual void set( int value ) { x = value; }
protected :
int x;
};
class b : public a
{
virtual void setA( int value ) { a::x = value; }
or
virtual void setA( int value ) { b::x = value; }
or
virtual void setA( int value ) { a::x = value; b::x = value; }
protected:
int x;
} ;
There are two ways of constructing a software design; one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult.
C.A.R.Hoare
According to Jon's answer, Since a::x and b::x are separate variables, furthermore since b::x masks a::x, if you wanted to get the correct semantics you need to provide a copy conversion constructor. The following code does the trick.
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
class b;
class a {
public:
a();
a(const b & bee);
int x;
};
class b : public a {public: int x; } ;
a::a() {}
a::a(const b & bee)
{
x = bee.x;
}
int main()
{
b bee;
bee.x = 3;
a ay = bee;
std::cout << std::endl << ay.x << std::endl;
}
Maybe try something like this:
class A { int x; };
class B : public A {int y;};
class Ap {
public:
void Append(A *pa)
{
entries.push_back(pa);
}
A *GetA(size_t nIndex)
{
return entries.at(nIndex);
}
private:
std::vector<*A> entries;
};
class Bp : Ap
{
public:
B *GetB(size_t nIndex)
{
return dynamic_cast<B*>(GetA(nIndex));
}
};