I am looking for a workaround to the lack of virtual template functions in C++.
What I want ideally is to be able to store my derived classes in a vector, iterate over those and call the correct function, so in pseudo-code:
template<typename T>
struct Output
{
...
};
struct Base
{
template<typename T>
virtual void doSomething(Output<T>& out) = 0;
};
struct DerivedA : public Base
{
DerivedA(const char* filename) {...}
template<typename T>
void doSomething(Output<T>& out) final
{
...
}
};
struct DerivedB : public Base
{
DerivedB(const char* filename) {...}
template<typename T>
void doSomething(Output<T>& out) final
{
...
}
};
int main()
{
std::vector<Base*> vec;
vec.push_back(new DerivedA("data1.bin"));
vec.push_back(new DerivedB("data2.bin"));
vec.push_back(new DerivedA("data3.bin"));
vec.push_back(new DerivedA("data4.bin"));
Output<float> outF;
Output<double> outD;
Output<int> outI;
for (auto e : vec)
{
e->doSomething(outF);
e->doSomething(outD);
e->doSomething(outI);
}
return 0;
}
I would prefer it if the workaround is as "painless" and non-verbose as possible (since I am using the templates to avoid redefining the same function n times for n different types in the first place). What I had in mind was making myself a vtable with std::map, and doing some dynamic_casts. I am looking for any better ideas, or even for a concise implementation of that idea if you consider it the best in this scenario. I am looking for a solution that is ideally the least intrusive, and that is very easy to add new classes to.
Edit:
I figured a workaround, but it includes some verbosity (but at least avoids non-trivial code duplication):
struct Base
{
virtual void doSomething(Output<int>& out) = 0;
virtual void doSomething(Output<float>& out) = 0;
virtual void doSomething(Output<double>& out) = 0;
private:
template<typename T>
void doSomething(Output<T>& out)
{
std::cout << "Base doSomething called with: " << typeid(T).name() << "\n";
}
};
struct DerivedA : public Base
{
void doSomething(Output<int>& out) final
{
doSomething<int>(out);
}
void doSomething(Output<float>& out) final
{
doSomething<float>(out);
}
void doSomething(Output<double>& out) final
{
doSomething<double>(out);
}
private:
template<typename T>
void doSomething(Output<T>& out)
{
std::cout << "DerivedA doSomething called with: " << typeid(T).name() << "\n";
}
};
struct DerivedB : public Base
{
void doSomething(Output<int>& out) final
{
doSomething<int>(out);
}
void doSomething(Output<float>& out) final
{
doSomething<float>(out);
}
void doSomething(Output<double>& out) final
{
doSomething<double>(out);
}
private:
template<typename T>
void doSomething(Output<T>& out)
{
std::cout << "DerivedB doSomething called with: " << typeid(T).name() << "\n";
}
};
Does anybody have any better idea how I can go about this without having to redefine the same functions over and over? Ideally it would be defined once in the base class, CRTP doesn't seem to help. Dynamic casts seem like the other sane option.
Try something like this:
struct OutputBase
{
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
};
template<class T >
struct Output : public OutputBase
{
virtual void doSomething()
{
std::cout << typeid(T).name();
}
};
struct Base
{
virtual void doSomething(OutputBase* out) = 0;
};
struct DerivedA : public Base
{
virtual void doSomething(OutputBase* out)
{
std::cout << "DerivedA doSomething called with: ";
out->doSomething();
std::cout<< std::endl;
}
};
struct DerivedB : public Base
{
virtual void doSomething(OutputBase* out)
{
std::cout << "DerivedB doSomething called with: ";
out->doSomething();
std::cout << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
OutputBase* out_int = new Output < int > ;
OutputBase* out_double = new Output < double >;
Base* a = new DerivedA;
a->doSomething(out_int);
a->doSomething(out_double);
Base* b = new DerivedB;
b->doSomething(out_int);
b->doSomething(out_double);
return 0;
}
You can use a wrapper around Output if you don't want to change it.
Related
class Data
{
public:
int i;
};
auto cmp = [](const Data& d1, const Data& d2) { return d1.i > d2.i; };
class A
{
private:
queue<Data> q;
public:
A() {};
void func() {
int cnt = 0;
while (!q.empty()) {
std::cout << cnt++ << std::endl;
q.pop();
}
}
};
class B
{
private:
priority_queue<Data, vector<Data>, decltype(cmp)> q;
public:
B() :q(cmp) {};
void func() {
int cnt = 0;
while (!q.empty()) {
std::cout << cnt++ << std::endl;
q.pop();
}
}
};
I define two classes A and B.As seen, their member func is the same, but with different member variable type q and different constructor.
So could I make A and B into two class derived from one base class (but with func in base class) or make them into a template class?(That is to say, I only want to write func once..)
If could, then how?
In both cases, it looks like you are just trying to count the number of items in a collection class before erasing it. If that's the case, let's just keep it simple.
void func() {
queue<Data> empty_queue;
cout << "About to erase a queue of size " << q.size() << "\n";
q.swap(empty_queue);
}
OR
void func() {
priority_queue<Data, vector<Data>, decltype(cmp)> empty_queue;
cout << "About to erase a queue of size " << q.size() << "\n";
q.swap(empty_queue);
}
I was about to recommend an inheritance strategy where A and B derived from a Base template class. But after I coded it, I didn't like the idea of deriving from what's ostensibly a queue class. You can't honestly say that A or B are "is a" of a queue. But here's what I wrote and I don't like it.
template <typename T>
class Base
{
protected:
T q;
public:
void func()
{
T empty_queue;
q.swap(empty_queue);
}
};
class A : public Base<queue<Data>>
{
public:
A() {};
};
class B : public Base<priority_queue<Data, vector<Data>, decltype(cmp)>>
{
public:
B() {}
};
A better approach might to just write a single template function:
template <typename T>
void EraseCollectionClass(T& t) {
T empty;
t.swap(empty);
}
And then keep your original implementations:
class A
{
private:
queue<Data> q;
public:
A() {};
void func() {
EraseCollectionClass(q);
}
};
class B
{
private:
priority_queue<Data, vector<Data>, decltype(cmp)> q;
public:
B() :q(cmp) {};
void func() {
EraseCollectionClass(q);
}
};
I would like to have a child class Handler that handles multiple callbacks and transfers data from one class to another. However, the base classes B1 and B2can have different implementations for its members.
Below a way to implement the behavior I want. I think there should be a better way but cannot figure it out.
// Example program
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
template <class T>
class IBase
{
public:
IBase()
{
object = new T(*this);
};
~IBase()
{
delete object;
}
virtual void ValidateCallback()
{
};
void RxCallback()
{
object->RxCallback();
};
void Send()
{
object->Send();
};
T* object;
};
class C1
{
public:
virtual void RxCompleteCallback() = 0;
void RxParse()
{
std::cout << "Parse C1" << std::endl;
RxCompleteCallback();
};
};
class C2
{
public:
virtual void RxCompleteCallback() = 0;
void RxParse()
{
std::cout << "Parse C2" << std::endl;
RxCompleteCallback();
};
};
class B1 : public C1
{
public:
B1(IBase<B1> &handler )
{
ihandler = &handler;
};
void DoSomething()
{
std::cout << "DoSomething B1" << std::endl;
ihandler->ValidateCallback();
};
void RxCompleteCallback() override
{
std::cout << "DoSomething other than B2" << std::endl;
std::cout << "RxCompleteCallback" << std::endl;
};
void RxCallback()
{
RxParse();
};
void Send()
{
DoSomething();
};
IBase<B1> * ihandler;
};
class B2 : public C2
{
public:
B2(IBase<B2> &handler )
{
ihandler = &handler;
};
void DoSomething()
{
std::cout << "DoSomething B2" << std::endl;
ihandler->ValidateCallback();
};
void RxCompleteCallback() override
{
std::cout << "DoSomething other than B1" << std::endl;
std::cout << "RxCompleteCallback" << std::endl;
};
void RxCallback()
{
RxParse();
};
void Send()
{
DoSomething();
};
IBase<B2> * ihandler;
};
class Validate
{
public:
void CalculateValidation()
{
std::cout << "Calculate validation" << std::endl;
};
};
template <class T>
class Handler : public IBase<T>, public Validate
{
public:
void ValidateCallback() override
{
std::cout << "ValidateCallback" << std::endl;
CalculateValidation();
};
void Receive()
{
IBase<T>::RxCallback();
};
void Send()
{
IBase<T>::Send();
}
};
int main()
{
Handler<B1> handler1;
handler1.Receive();
handler1.Send();
std::cout << std::endl;
Handler<B2> handler2;
handler2.Receive();
handler2.Send();
}
Output:
Parse C1
DoSomething other than B2
RxCompleteCallback
DoSomething B1
ValidateCallback
Calculate validation
Parse C2
DoSomething other than B1
RxCompleteCallback
DoSomething B2
ValidateCallback
Calculate validation
There are several ways to do this in C++. It's hard to say what the best way is, it depends on how you will use it, and the example you gave is too simple to recommend a specific way. Normally, I'd say you want to derive your protocol-specific classes from Handler, instead of the other way around, so you'd write:
class Handler {
public:
virtual void Receive() {};
virtual void Send() {};
};
class B1: public Handler {
virtual void Receive() {
...
}
virtual void Send() {
...
}
};
int main() {
B1 handler1;
handler1.Receive();
...
}
The main issue here is that you need to use virtual member functions here, otherwise the base class doesn't know which derived class's implementation to call. But it does allow you to pass a Handler * as an argument to another function, which will then work with any derived class without needing any templating.
Another option is to use the curiously recurring template pattern, which would look like:
template <typename T>
class Handler {
void Receive() {
static_cast<T*>(this)->Receive();
}
void Send() {
static_cast<T*>(this)->Send();
}
};
class B1: public Handler<B1>
{
void Receive() {
...
}
void Send() {
...
}
};
int main() {
B1 handler1;
handler1.Receive();
...
}
This avoids virtual methods.
It is also quite similar to your class Handler, but it has the advantage that it doesn't need the T *object member variable.
I have several behaviors that I want a class to have. I'd like to isolate these behaviors, so that I can reuse that code, mix and match at will.
For example, a way to do this would be:
class BehaviorAbstract {
protected:
virtual void processInfo(Info i) = 0;
}
class Behavior1: public BehaviorAbstract {
protected:
virtual void processInfo(Info i) { ... }
void performBehavior1() { ... }
}
class Behavior2: public BehaviorAbstract {
protected:
virtual void processInfo(Info i) { ... }
void performBehavior2() { ... }
}
class ConcreteObject: public Behavior1, Behavior2 {
protected:
void processInfo(Info i) {
// needs to call processInfo of Behavior1 and Behavior2
Behavior1::processInfo(i);
Behavior2::processInfo(i);
}
void perform() {
this->performBehavior1(); this->performBehavior2();
}
}
So here's the crux of the matter: ConcreteObject needs to call the 2 functions processInfo (same name, same arguments) of all the classes it inherits from. Imagine that all the behavior classes are coded by different developers. The function HAS to have the same name, because they all derive from BehaviorAbstract.
What's a reasonable design pattern to do this? I suspect multiple inheritance might be wrong here, and maybe a "multiple composition" would be better, but I need all the Behavior classes and the ConcreteObject to derive from BehaviorAbstract and they all need to operate on the same protected data member of BehaviorAbstract.
The solution I wrote above feels wrong and ugly. Is there a way to call automatically all the parent classes that implement processInfo, without explicitely having to rewrite their name?
Thanks a lot for the help.
If I got this right, then this question is about refactoring the ConcreteObject class.
Approach #1:
If you can make performBehavior() part of the BehaviorAbstract base class, then you can simply use a vector of BehaviorAbstract* and let polymorphism do its thing. I think this can be seen as the strategy pattern.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
typedef int Info;
struct BehaviorAbstract
{
virtual void processInfo(Info i) = 0;
virtual void performBehavior() = 0;
};
struct Behavior1 : BehaviorAbstract
{
void processInfo(Info i) override
{ std::cout<< "Behavior1::processInfo()" <<std::endl; }
void performBehavior() override
{ std::cout<< "Behavior1::performBehavior()" <<std::endl; }
};
struct Behavior2 : BehaviorAbstract
{
void processInfo(Info i) override
{ std::cout<< "Behavior2::processInfo()" <<std::endl; }
void performBehavior() override
{ std::cout<< "Behavior2::performBehavior()" <<std::endl; }
};
//------------------------------------------------//
struct ConcreteObject
{
typedef std::vector<BehaviorAbstract*> vec_behavior;
vec_behavior vba;
ConcreteObject(vec_behavior &&v) : vba(v)
{;}
void processInfo(Info i)
{
for (auto &&itr : vba)
itr->processInfo(i);
}
void perform()
{
for (auto &&itr : vba)
itr->performBehavior();
}
};
int main()
{
ConcreteObject foo = {{new Behavior1(), new Behavior2()}};
foo.processInfo(23);
foo.perform();
}
Example: https://rextester.com/UXR42210
Approach #2:
Using a variadic template which creates a tuple. The iterate over that tuple and run the functions. Again, if performBehavior1() and performBehavior2() could share the same function name, then it would get easier. The extra complexity here is that you need to write a manual way of iterating over that tuple. For simplicity, I called the processInfo() directly from the iterate_tuple struct.
#include <iostream>
#include <tuple>
typedef int Info;
struct BehaviorAbstract
{
virtual void processInfo(Info i) = 0;
};
struct Behavior1 : BehaviorAbstract
{
void processInfo(Info i) override
{ std::cout<< "Behavior1::processInfo()" <<std::endl; }
void performBehavior1()
{ std::cout<< "Behavior1::performBehavior1()" <<std::endl; }
};
struct Behavior2 : BehaviorAbstract
{
void processInfo(Info i) override
{ std::cout<< "Behavior2::processInfo()" <<std::endl; }
void performBehavior2()
{ std::cout<< "Behavior2::performBehavior2()" <<std::endl; }
};
//------------------------------------------------//
template<typename T, std::size_t N>
struct iterate_tuple
{
static void run(T &t, Info i)
{
std::get<N>(t).processInfo(i);
iterate_tuple<T, N-1>::run(t,i);
}
};
template<typename T>
struct iterate_tuple<T, 0>
{
static void run(T &t, Info i)
{
std::get<0>(t).processInfo(i);
}
};
//------------------------------------------------//
template<typename ...T>
struct ConcreteObject
{
std::tuple<T ...> tmp;
static constexpr std::size_t tuple_size = std::tuple_size<decltype(tmp)>::value;
ConcreteObject() : tmp{std::forward<T>(T()) ...}
{;}
void processInfo(Info i)
{
iterate_tuple<decltype(tmp), tuple_size-1>::run(tmp, i);
}
void perform()
{
std::get<0>(tmp).performBehavior1();
std::get<1>(tmp).performBehavior2();
}
};
int main()
{
ConcreteObject<Behavior1,Behavior2> foo;
foo.processInfo(23);
foo.perform();
}
Example: https://rextester.com/SBRE16218
Both approaches avoid multiple inheritance which, from what I understood, is what you want to avoid. FYI, the simpler the better.
I have been looking for a way to use both templating and polymorphism at the same time. Here's a simplified version of my problem:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
//*******************************************************************
//*******************************************************************
struct DerivedStuff1
{
static void eval() { cout << "evaluating DerivedStuff1" << endl; }
};
struct DerivedStuff2
{
static void eval() { cout << "evaluating DerivedStuff2" << endl; }
};
//*******************************************************************
//*******************************************************************
class BaseClass
{
public:
template<typename StuffType> virtual void eval() const = 0;
};
class DerivedClass1 : public BaseClass
{
public:
template<typename StuffType> virtual void eval() const
{
std::cout << "We are in DerivedClass1: ";
StuffType::eval();
}
};
class DerivedClass2 : public BaseClass
{
public:
template<typename StuffType> virtual void eval() const
{
std::cout << "We are in DerivedClass2: ";
StuffType::eval();
}
};
int main()
{
BaseClass* c1 = new DerivedClass1;
c1->eval<DerivedStuff1>();
c1->eval<DerivedStuff2>();
BaseClass* c2 = new DerivedClass2;
c2->eval<DerivedStuff1>();
c2->eval<DerivedStuff2>();
return 0;
}
This code does not compile because virtual template functions are not allowed in C++. I found a few approaches to tackle this problem (CRTP, etc.) but none of them were really satisfying. Is there no elegant way to get around that issue?
The visitor pattern turns run-time polymorphism on its side and makes runtime-polymorphic function templates possible. It has other legitimate uses apart from templatisation, so I guess you can call it somewhat elegant.
Your example can look as follows:
#include <iostream>
class DerivedStuff1 {
public:
static void eval() { std::cout << "Evaluating DerivedStuff1\n"; }
};
class DerivedStuff2 {
public:
static void eval() { std::cout << "Evaluating DerivedStuff2\n"; }
};
class DerivedClass1; class DerivedClass2;
class BaseClassVisitor {
public:
virtual void visit(DerivedClass1&) = 0;
virtual void visit(DerivedClass2&) = 0;
};
class BaseClass {
public:
virtual void accept(BaseClassVisitor& v) = 0;
};
class DerivedClass1 : public BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void accept(BaseClassVisitor& v) { v.visit(*this); }
};
class DerivedClass2 : public BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void accept(BaseClassVisitor& v) { v.visit(*this); }
};
template <typename StuffType>
class EvalVisitor : public BaseClassVisitor
{
virtual void visit(DerivedClass1&) {
std::cout << "We are in DerivedClass1: ";
StuffType::eval();
}
virtual void visit(DerivedClass2&) {
std::cout << "We are in DerivedClass2: ";
StuffType::eval();
}
};
int main()
{
EvalVisitor<DerivedStuff1> e1;
EvalVisitor<DerivedStuff2> e2;
BaseClass* c1 = new DerivedClass1;
c1->accept(e1);
c1->accept(e2);
BaseClass* c2 = new DerivedClass2;
c2->accept(e1);
c2->accept(e2);
return 0;
}
Demo
Of course all shortcomings of Visitor apply here.
You could reinvent the vtable and resolve the function pointer at run time. You will, however, have to explicitely instantiate the template on the derived class, but I don't see any approach to this that won't require that.
Quick and dirty example:
#include <map>
#include <iostream>
class Base {
public:
typedef void (Base::*eval_ptr)();
using eval_vtable = std::map<std::type_index, eval_ptr>;
Base(eval_vtable const& eval_p) : eval_ptrs(eval_p) {}
template<typename T>
void eval() {
auto handler = eval_ptrs.find(type_index(typeid(T)));
if(handler != eval_ptrs.end()) {
auto handler_ptr = handler->second;
(this->*handler_ptr)();
}
}
eval_vtable const& eval_ptrs;
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
Derived()
: Base(eval_functions) {}
template<typename T>
void eval_impl() {
std::cout << typeid(T).name() << "\n";
}
static eval_vtable eval_functions;
};
Base::eval_vtable Derived::eval_functions = {
{ type_index(typeid(int)), eval_ptr(&Derived::eval_impl<int>) },
{ type_index(typeid(float)), eval_ptr(&Derived::eval_impl<float>) },
{ type_index(typeid(short)), eval_ptr(&Derived::eval_impl<short>) },
};
int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) {
Derived x;
Base * x_as_base = &x;
x_as_base->eval<int>(); // calls Derived::eval_impl<int>()
return 0;
}
This won't be exactly fast, but it will give you the closest thing to templated virtual functions that I can think of.
Edit: For the record I don't advocate anyone use this. I would much rather revisit the design to avoid being painted in this particular corner in the first place. Please consider my answer as an academic solution to a theoretical problem, not an actual engineering recommendation.
Since virtual template methods in C++ arent allowed, you can make a class template and call static function of class template param.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
//*******************************************************************
//*******************************************************************
struct DerivedStuff1
{
static void eval() { cout << "evaluating DerivedStuff1" << endl; }
};
struct DerivedStuff2
{
static void eval() { cout << "evaluating DerivedStuff2" << endl; }
};
//*******************************************************************
//*******************************************************************
class BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void eval() const = 0;
};
template<typename StuffType>
class DerivedClass1 : public BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void eval() const
{
std::cout << "We are in DerivedClass1: ";
StuffType::eval();
}
};
template<typename StuffType>
class DerivedClass2 : public BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void eval() const
{
std::cout << "We are in DerivedClass2: ";
StuffType::eval();
}
};
int main()
{
BaseClass* c1 = new DerivedClass1<DerivedStuff1>;
c1->eval();
c1 = new DerivedClass1<DerivedStuff2>;
c1->eval();
BaseClass* c2 = new DerivedClass2<DerivedStuff1>;
c2->eval();
c2 = new DerivedClass2<DerivedStuff2>;
c2->eval();
// deletes
return 0;
}
Output
We are in DerivedClass1: evaluating DerivedStuff1
We are in DerivedClass1: evaluating DerivedStuff2
We are in DerivedClass2: evaluating DerivedStuff1
We are in DerivedClass2: evaluating DerivedStuff2
You cannot mix templates (compile time) and polymorphic (runtime). That's it.
So, a posible workaround is remove templates. For example, it could take a function pointer or just more polymorphism:
//*******************************************************************
//*******************************************************************
struct InterfaceStuff{
virtual void eval() = 0;
}
struct DerivedStuff1 : public InterfaceStuff
{
void eval() { cout << "evaluating DerivedStuff1" << endl; }
};
struct DerivedStuff2 : public InterfaceStuff
{
void eval() { cout << "evaluating DerivedStuff2" << endl; }
};
//*******************************************************************
//*******************************************************************
class BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void eval(InterfaceStuff* interface) const = 0;
};
class DerivedClass1 : public BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void eval(InterfaceStuff* interface) const
{
std::cout << "We are in DerivedClass1: ";
interface->eval();
}
};
class DerivedClass2 : public BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void eval(InterfaceStuff* interface) const
{
std::cout << "We are in DerivedClass2: ";
interface->eval();
}
};
Another posible workaround is remove polymorphism, just use more templates:
struct DerivedStuff1
{
static void eval() { cout << "evaluating DerivedStuff1" << endl; }
};
struct DerivedStuff2
{
static void eval() { cout << "evaluating DerivedStuff2" << endl; }
};
//*******************************************************************
//*******************************************************************
class BaseClass
{
public:
template<typename Eval,typename StuffType> void eval() const
{
Eval::eval();
StuffType::eval();
}
};
class DerivedClass1 : public BaseClass
{
};
class DerivedClass2 : public BaseClass
{
};
One way of another, you have to choose one.
Suppose that all classes of a hierarchy implement a template member function g. All classes share the same implementation of two other functions f1 and f2 that call this template:
struct A {
virtual void f1() {
g(5);
}
virtual void f2() {
g(5.5);
}
private:
template <typename T> void g(T) {std::cout << "In A" << std::endl;}
};
struct B: A {
// Can I get rid of this duplicate code?
virtual void f1() {
g(5);
}
virtual void f2() {
g(5.5);
}
private:
template <typename T> void g(T) {std::cout << "In B" << std::endl;}
};
struct C: A {
// Can I get rid of this duplicate code?
virtual void f1() {
g(5);
}
virtual void f2() {
g(5.5);
}
private:
template <typename T> void g(T) {std::cout << "In C" << std::endl;}
};
int main()
{
B b;
A &a = b;
a.f1();
return 0;
}
Since the implementations of f1 and f2 are identical in all the classes, how can I get rid of the duplicate code and still have the polymorphic call in main work as expected (i.e produce the output "In B")?
Note that the implementations of f1 and f2 in A, B, and C are not identical. Let's restrict it to f1s. One calls a function named ::A::g<int>, another one calls a function named ::B::g<int>, and the third one calls a function named ::C::g<int>. They are very far from identical.
The best you could do is have a CRTP-style base:
template <class Derived>
struct DelegateToG : public A
{
void f1() override
{
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->g(5);
}
void f2() override
{
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->g(5.5);
}
};
class B : public DelegateToG<B>
{
friend DelegateToG<B>;
private:
template <class T> void g(T) { /*...*/ }
};
class C : public DelegateToG<C>
{
friend DelegateToG<C>;
private:
template <class T> void g(T) { /*...*/ }
};
You can just factor out the class-specific things that the template function uses, such as (in your example) the class name:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
private:
virtual auto classname() const -> char const* { return "A"; }
protected:
template <typename T> void g(T) {cout << "In " << classname() << endl;}
public:
virtual void f1() { g(5); }
virtual void f2() { g(5.5); }
};
class B
: public A
{
private:
auto classname() const -> char const* override { return "B"; }
};
class C
: public A
{
private:
auto classname() const -> char const* override { return "C"; }
};
auto main()
-> int
{ static_cast<A&&>( B() ).f1(); }