class MyInterface {
public:
virtual void someFunction()= 0;
};
class X: public MyInterface {
private:
virtual void doThis() {
printf("This X");
}
virtual void doThat() {
printf("That X");
}
public:
void someFunction() {
doThis();
doThat();
}
};
class Y: public MyInterface, private X {
private:
void doThat() {
printf("That Y");
}
};
MyInterface *iface= new Y();
Y->someFunction();
Coming from Java's flavor of OOP, I am trying to wrap my head around the OOP model of C++. I have read this: http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill18.htm for suggestions how to design interfaces in C++. The above code is a direct application (or a slight variation thereof) of the rule the author expounds. My question is, is the code above going to produce "This X" followed by "That Y"? What I find confusing is that the author recommends using virtual in conjunction with private. My reasoning is, if a function is private, how are we to override it at all?
In the above code, it is granted that Y can be used as the right-hand-side of the assignment, since we derive publicly from the interface. When we call someFunction() on it, since we do not explicitly provide any implementation inside class Y, is it going to use the implementation from class X? Then, provided it does, it looks at doThat() and again uses Ys implementation of it?
The code has a few problems. Here is a working example:
class MyInterface
{
public:
virtual ~MyInterface() { }
virtual void someFunction() = 0;
};
class X : public MyInterface
{
private:
virtual void doThis()
{
printf("This X\n");
}
virtual void doThat()
{
printf("That X\n");
}
public:
void someFunction()
{
doThis();
doThat();
}
};
class Y : public X
{
private:
void doThat()
{
printf("That Y\n");
}
};
int main()
{
MyInterface *iface = new Y();
iface->someFunction();
delete iface;
}
Explanations
You need to use class Y : public X to be able to use the implementation of void X::someFunction()
Unfortunately there is no real interface in C++ and there is only a workaround using pure virtual class. This workaround with two parents has it's own limitations (see bellow). And therefore it is also a good idea to add a destructor to interface definition.
When you use class Y: public MyInterface, private X you need to provide a custom implementation of MyInterface::someFunction(). You have have two parent classes and someFunction() in both parents (X and MyInterface). This is necessary even when there is only one implementation of function. Therefore you need to specify which parent class 'implementation' will be used. Error:
'Y': cannot instantiate abstract class
You also get a error when you remove the interface (try to use the interface from X). The reason is simple, when X is private, the implementation is not public and can not be used as a interface.
'type cast': conversion from 'Y *' to 'MyInterface *' exists, but is inaccessible
You are using class as type in Y->someFunction();
I have no idea, why you can override a private virtual function. I mostly work in C# now and this 'feature' of C++ is something I do not get. You are right, that this should be bad code, but it work (at least in Visual Studio 2017).
I would also like to know, why this is not considered as error/incorrect code construction.
Related
Let's say I have a parent class, Arbitrary, and two child classes, Foo and Bar. I'm trying to implement a function to insert any Arbitrary object into a database, however, since the child classes contain data specific to those classes, I need to perform slightly different operations depending on the type.
Coming into C++ from Java/C#, my first instinct was to have a function that takes the parent as the parameter use something like instanceof and some if statements to handle child-class-specific behavior.
Pseudocode:
void someClass(Arbitrary obj){
obj.doSomething(); //a member function from the parent class
//more operations based on parent class
if(obj instanceof Foo){
//do Foo specific stuff
}
if(obj instanceof Bar){
//do Bar specific stuff
}
}
However, after looking into how to implement this in C++, the general consensus seemed to be that this is poor design.
If you have to use instanceof, there is, in most cases, something wrong with your design. – mslot
I considered the possibility of overloading the function with each type, but that would seemingly lead to code duplication. And, I would still end up needing to handle the child-specific behavior in the parent class, so that wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
So, my question is, what's the better way of performing operations that where all parent and child classes should be accepted as input, but in which behavior is dictated by the object type?
First, you want to take your Arbitrary by pointer or reference, otherwise you will slice off the derived class. Next, sounds like a case of a virtual method.
void someClass(Arbitrary* obj) {
obj->insertIntoDB();
}
where:
class Arbitrary {
public:
virtual ~Arbitrary();
virtual void insertIntoDB() = 0;
};
So that the subclasses can provide specific overrides:
class Foo : public Arbitrary {
public:
void insertIntoDB() override
// ^^^ if C++11
{
// do Foo-specific insertion here
}
};
Now there might be some common functionality in this insertion between Foo and Bar... so you should put that as a protected method in Arbitrary. protected so that both Foo and Bar have access to it but someClass() doesn't.
In my opinion, if at any place you need to write
if( is_instance_of(Derived1) )
//do something
else if ( is_instance_of(Derived2) )
//do somthing else
...
then it's as sign of bad design. First and most straight forward issue is that of "Maintainence". You have to take care in case further derivation happens. However, sometimes it's necessary. for e.g if your all classes are part of some library. In other cases you should avoid this coding as far as possible.
Most often you can remove the need to check for specific instance by introducing some new classes in the hierarchy. For e.g :-
class BankAccount {};
class SavingAccount : public BankAccount { void creditInterest(); };
class CheckingAccount : public BankAccount { void creditInterest(): };
In this case, there seems to be a need for if/else statement to check for actual object as there is no corresponsing creditInterest() in BanAccount class. However, indroducing a new class could obviate the need for that checking.
class BankAccount {};
class InterestBearingAccount : public BankAccount { void creditInterest(): } {};
class SavingAccount : public InterestBearingAccount { void creditInterest(): };
class CheckingAccount : public InterestBearingAccount { void creditInterest(): };
The issue here is that this will arguably violate SOLID design principles, given that any extension in the number of mapped classes would require new branches in the if statement, otherwise the existing dispatch method will fail (it won't work with any subclass, just those it knows about).
What you are describing looks well suited to inheritance polymorphicism - each of Arbitrary (base), Foo and Bar can take on the concerns of its own fields.
There is likely to be some common database plumbing which can be DRY'd up the base method.
class Arbitrary { // Your base class
protected:
virtual void mapFields(DbCommand& dbCommand) {
// Map the base fields here
}
public:
void saveToDatabase() { // External caller invokes this on any subclass
openConnection();
DbCommand& command = createDbCommand();
mapFields(command); // Polymorphic call
executeDbTransaction(command);
}
}
class Foo : public Arbitrary {
protected: // Hide implementation external parties
virtual void mapFields(DbCommand& dbCommand) {
Arbitrary::mapFields();
// Map Foo specific fields here
}
}
class Bar : public Arbitrary {
protected:
virtual void mapFields(DbCommand& dbCommand) {
Arbitrary::mapFields();
// Map Bar specific fields here
}
}
If the base class, Arbitrary itself cannot exist in isolation, it should also be marked as abstract.
As StuartLC pointed out, the current design violates the SOLID principles. However, both his answer and Barry's answer has strong coupling with the database, which I do not like (should Arbitrary really need to know about the database?). I would suggest that you make some additional abstraction, and make the database operations independent of the the data types.
One possible implementation may be like:
class Arbitrary {
public:
virtual std::string serialize();
static Arbitrary* deserialize();
};
Your database-related would be like (please notice that the parameter form Arbitrary obj is wrong and can truncate the object):
void someMethod(const Arbitrary& obj)
{
// ...
db.insert(obj.serialize());
}
You can retrieve the string from the database later and deserialize into a suitable object.
So, my question is, what's the better way of performing operations
that where all parent and child classes should be accepted as input,
but in which behavior is dictated by the object type?
You can use Visitor pattern.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Arbitrary;
class Foo;
class Bar;
class ArbitraryVisitor
{
public:
virtual void visitParent(Arbitrary& m) {};
virtual void visitFoo(Foo& vm) {};
virtual void visitBar(Bar& vm) {};
};
class Arbitrary
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething()
{
cout<<"do Parent specific stuff"<<endl;
}
virtual void accept(ArbitraryVisitor& v)
{
v.visitParent(*this);
}
};
class Foo: public Arbitrary
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething()
{
cout<<"do Foo specific stuff"<<endl;
}
virtual void accept(ArbitraryVisitor& v)
{
v.visitFoo(*this);
}
};
class Bar: public Arbitrary
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething()
{
cout<<"do Bar specific stuff"<<endl;
}
virtual void accept(ArbitraryVisitor& v)
{
v.visitBar(*this);
}
};
class SetArbitaryVisitor : public ArbitraryVisitor
{
void visitParent(Arbitrary& vm)
{
vm.DoSomething();
}
void visitFoo(Foo& vm)
{
vm.DoSomething();
}
void visitBar(Bar& vm)
{
vm.DoSomething();
}
};
int main()
{
Arbitrary *arb = new Foo();
SetArbitaryVisitor scv;
arb->accept(scv);
}
I have a class (let's call it A) the inherits an interface defining several abstract methods and another class there to factor in some code (let's call it B).
The question is, I have an abstract method in the interface that A implements just to call the B version. Is there a way to use the keyword using to avoid writing a dull method like:
int A::method() override
{
return B::method();
}
I tried writing in A using B::method, but I still get an error that A doesn't implement the abstract method from the interface.
Is there a special technique to use in the case or am I just out of luck? (and if so, is there a specific reason why it should be that way?).
Thanks.
edit:
To clarify, the question is, why isn't it possible to just do this:
class A: public Interface, public B {
using B::method;
};
Let's make this clear. You basically have the following problem, right?
struct Interface
{
virtual void method() = 0;
};
struct B
{
void method()
{
// implementation of Interface::method
}
};
struct A : Interface, B
{
// some magic here to automatically
// override Interface::method and
// call B::method
};
This is simply impossible, because the fact that the methods have the same names is irrelevant from a technical point view. In other word's, Interface::method and B::method are simply not related to each other, and their identical names are not more than a coincidence, just like someone else called "Julien" doesn't have anything to do with you just because you share the same first name.
You are basically left with the following options:
1.) Just write the call manually:
struct A : Interface, B
{
virtual void method()
{
B::method();
}
};
2.) Minimise writing work with a macro, so that you can write:
struct A : Interface, B
{
OVERRIDE(method)
};
But I would strongly recommend against this solution. Less writing work for you = more reading work for everyone else.
3.) Change the class hierarchy, so that B implements Interface:
struct Interface
{
virtual void method() = 0;
};
struct B : Interface
{
virtual void method()
{
// implementation of Interface::method
}
};
struct A : B
{
};
if B::method is abstract you cannot call it because is not implemented... has no code.
An example:
class A
{
public:
virtual void method1( ) = 0;
virtual void method2( ){ }
};
class B : public A
{
public:
virtual void method1( ) override
{ return A::method1( ); } // Error. A::method1 is abstract
virtual method2( ) override
{ return A::method2( ); } // OK. A::method2 is an implemented method
}
Even if there were a way to do what you want, in the name of the readability of your code, I would not recommend that.
If you do not put the "B::" before "method" call, when I read that, I would say it is a recursive call.
There probably is a fairly simple and straight-forward answer for this, but for some reason I can't see it.
I need to restrict calling methods from a class only to some methods implemented by derived classes of some interface.
Say I have
class A{
public:
static void foo();
};
class myInterface{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere() = 0;
}
class myImplementation : public myInterface{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere()
{
A::foo(); //this should work
}
void otherFoo()
{
A::foo(); //i want to get a compilation error here
}
}
So I should be able to call A::foo only from the method onlyCallFooFromHere()
Is there a way to achieve this? I'm open to any suggestions, including changing the class design.
EDIT:
So... I feel there's a need to further explain the issue. I have a utility class which interacts with a database (mainly updates records) - class A.
In my interface (which represents a basic database objects) I have the virtual function updateRecord() from which I call methods from the db utility class. I want to enforce updating the database only in the updateRecord() function of all extending classes and nowhere else. I don't believe this to be a bad design choice, even if not possible. However, if indeed not possible, I would appreciate a different solution.
Change the class design - what you want is impossible.
I am unsure of what you are trying to achieve with so little details and I am unable to comment further.
[Disclaimer: this solution will stop Murphy, not Macchiavelli.]
How about:
class DatabaseQueryInterface {
public:
~virtual DatabseQueryInterface() = 0;
virtual Query compileQuery() const = 0; // or whatever
virtual ResultSet runQuery(const Query&) const = 0; // etc
};
class DatabaseUpdateInterface : public DatabaseQueryInterface {
public:
virtual Update compileUpdate() const = 0; // whatever
};
class DatabaseObject {
public:
virtual ~DatabaseObject() = 0;
protected:
virtual void queryRecord(const DatabaseQueryInterface& interface) = 0;
virtual void updateRecord(const DatabaseUpdateInterface& interface) = 0;
};
class SomeConcreteDatabaseObject : public DatabaseObject {
protected:
virtual void updateRecord(const DatabaseUpdateInterface& interface) {
// gets to use interface->compileUpdate()
}
virtual void queryRecord(const DatabaseQueryInterface& interface) {
// only gets query methods, no updates
}
};
So the basic idea is that your DatabaseObject base class squirrels away a private Query object and a private Update object and when it comes time to call the protected members of the subclass it hands off the Update interface to the updateRecord() method, and the Query interface to the queryRecord() method.
That way the natural thing for the subclasses is to use the object they are passed to talk to the database. Of course they can always resort to dirty tricks to store away a passed-in Update object and try to use it later from a query method, but frankly if they go to such lengths, they're on their own.
You could split your project into different TUs:
// A.h
class A
{
public:
static void foo();
};
// My.h
class myInterface
{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere() = 0;
}
class myImplementation : public myInterface
{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere();
void otherFoo();
};
// My-with-A.cpp
#include "My.h"
#include "A.h"
void myImplementation::onlyCallFooFromHere() { /* use A */ }
// My-without-A.cpp
#include "My.h"
void myImplementation::otherFoo() { /* no A here */ }
You probably know this, but with inheritance, you can have public, protected, and private member access.
If a member is private in the base class, the derived cannot access it, while if that same member is protected, then the derived class can access it (while it still isn't public, so you're maintaining encapsulation).
There's no way to stop specific functions from being able to see whats available in their scope though (which is what you're asking), but you can design your base class so that the derived classes can only access specific elements of it.
This could be useful because class B could inherit from class A as protected (thus getting its protected members) while class C could inherit from the same class A as public (thus not getting access to its protected members). This will let you get some form of call availability difference at least -- between classes though, not between functions in the same class.
This could work.
class myInterface;
class A {
private:
friend class myInterface;
static void foo();
};
class myInterface {
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere() {callFoo();}
protected:
void callFoo() {A::foo();}
};
Though at this point I think I'd just make A::foo a static of myInterface. The concerns aren't really separate anymore.
class myInterface {
protected:
static void foo();
};
Is there a reason foo is in A?
For example, when creating a class library, I would like to specify an internal API and a public API for each classes, so I can hide some details from the user. The internal API would be used by other classes in the library, and the public API would be used by the library user.
Is it possible?
In C++, interface could mean many things. It could mean pure virtual functions that you implement in the derived classes, as in the following example,
class Interface
{
public:
virtual void f() = 0 ;
};
class Implementation : public Interface
{
public:
virtual void f() {}
};
--
Or it could mean just public functions in your class:
class A
{
public:
void f() {} //public function - an interface that the outside world can
//use to talk to your class.
};
You can use either of these and can make use of access-specifiers ( public, protected, private) to make your interfaces public or internal/private!
Kind of.
Some libraries use friend classes/functions for this. Each class declares other classes as friends if they need access to more than the "public" interface:
class Car {
friend class Mechanic;
private:
Engine engine;
};
class Mechanic {
// something involving Car::engine...
};
It's not very pretty, but it works.
Another approach that might work for you is the pimpl (pointer-to-implementation) idiom:
class CarImpl; // declaration only
class Car {
private:
CarImpl *impl;
public:
CarImpl *getImpl(); // doesn't strictly belong in the pimpl pattern
// methods that simply call the corresponding methods on impl
};
The internal interface can be accessed through a getImpl() call. You would put the CarImpl declaration in a header file that is clearly marked as internal, so clients won't access it. For example, you could put such headers in a subdirectory called internal.
The obvious drawback is that the Car class has a bunch of trivial methods that you have to implement.
A third approach, that I do not recommend, is inheritance:
class Car {
public:
virtual void start() = 0;
static Car *create();
};
And in an internal header:
class CarImpl : public Car {
public:
virtual void start();
};
The Car class only exposes the public interface; to get access to the internal interface, internal code needs to do a downcast to CarImpl. This is ugly.
You can use many tricks to grant friendship or an "extended" interface to a given few, however it is soon cumbersome.
The simplest way to separate the external interface from the internal interface... is to have two interfaces, thus two classes.
If you take a peek at the set of Design Patterns proposed by the GoF, you'll notice the Proxy pattern.
You can use this by not exposing the class to the exterior of your library, but instead exposing a Proxy, in which you wrap the class, and which only exposes a subset of its interface.
class MyClass
{
public:
void foo();
void bar();
void printDebugInfo();
void test();
};
class MyClassProxy
{
public:
MyClassProxy(std::unique_ptr<MyClass> ptr): _ptr(ptr) {}
void foo() { _ptr->foo(); }
void bar() { _ptr->bar(); }
private:
std::unique_ptr<MyClass> _ptr;
};
I personally find this design rather clean. No down-casting, No subtle inheritance trick, No friendship list longer than my arm.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but if you have an abstract class defined:
class Loggable { ... };
You can inherit from it privately, like this:
class User : private Loggable { ... };
The class User now has the members of Loggable, but they are private.
Please see the C++ FAQ lite.
There is a number of ways to approach this. One is runtime polymorphism:
struct widget {
virtual debug_info diagnose() = 0;
virtual void draw() = 0;
};
struct window {
virtual void draw() = 0;
};
struct view : public window, public widget {
void draw();
debug_info diagnose(); // internal
};
Or with compile-time polymorphism:
struct view {
void draw();
debug_info diagnose(); // internal
};
template<class W>
void do_it(W window)
{
widget.draw();
}
template<class W>
void diagnose_it(W widget)
{
debug_info d = widget.diagnose();
}
Another approach is to expose private members to specific functions or classes:
struct widget {
virtual void draw() = 0;
};
struct view : public widget {
friend void diagnose_widget(widget w);
void draw();
private:
debug_info diagnose();
};
// internal
debug_info diagnose_widget(widget w)
{
debug_info d = w.diagnose();
}
A C++ class has 3 levels of protection: public, protected and private. Public things are accessible to everybody, protected only to descendant -- and then for themselves and not for other descendants --, private for the class and its friend.
Thus friendship is the only way to grant more than public access to a class/function which isn't a descendant, and it grants full access, which isn't always convenient.
An heavy solution which I've used with success was to write a wrapper which was a friend of the main class, and then provided additional access to its own friends (which were the only one able to construct the wrapper). I'm not really recommending it, it is tedious, but it could be useful if you have such a need.
class Main {
public:
...
private: // but wrapped
void foo();
protected:
...
private: // and not wrapped
void bar();
};
class Wrapper {
pubic:
void foo() { wrapped.foo(); }
private:
Wrapper(Main& m) : wrapped(ma) {}
Main& wrapped;
friend void qux(Main&);
};
void qux(Main& m) {
Wrapper mwrapped(m)
mwrapped.foo();
// still can't access bar
}
I have this pimpl design where the implementation classes are polymorphic but the interfaces are supposed to just contain a pointer, making them polymorphic somewhat defeats the purpose of the design.
So I create my Impl and Intf base classes to provide reference counting. And then the user can create their implementations. An example:
class Impl {
mutable int _ref;
public:
Impl() : _ref(0) {}
virtual ~Impl() {}
int addRef() const { return ++_ref; }
int decRef() const { return --_ref; }
};
template <typename TImpl>
class Intf {
TImpl* impl;
public:
Intf(TImpl* t = 0) : impl(0) {}
Intf(const Intf& other) : impl(other.impl) { if (impl) impl->addRef(); }
Intf& operator=(const Intf& other) {
if (other.impl) other.impl->addRef();
if (impl && impl->decRef() <= 0) delete impl;
impl = other.impl;
}
~Intf() { if (impl && impl->decRef() <= 0) delete impl; }
protected:
TImpl* GetImpl() const { return impl; }
void SetImpl(... //etc
};
class ShapeImpl : public Impl {
public:
virtual void draw() = 0;
};
class Shape : public Intf<ShapeImpl> {
public:
Shape(ShapeImpl* i) : Intf<ShapeImpl>(i) {}
void draw() {
ShapeImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) i->draw();
}
};
class TriangleImpl : public ShapeImpl {
public:
void draw();
};
class PolygonImpl : public ShapeImpl {
public:
void draw();
void addSegment(Point a, Point b);
};
Here is where have the issue. There are two possible declaration for class Polygon:
class Polygon1 : public Intf<PolygonImpl> {
public:
void draw() {
PolygonImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) i->draw();
}
void addSegment(Point a, Point b) {
PolygonImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) i->addSegment(a,b);
}
};
class Polygon2 : public Shape {
void addSegment(Point a, Point b) {
ShapeImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) dynamic_cast<Polygon*>(i)->addSegment(a,b);
}
}
In the Polygon1, I have rewrite the code for draw because I have not inherited it. In Polygon2 I need ugly dynamic casts because GetImpl() doesn't know about PolygonImpl. What I would like to do is something like this:
template <typename TImpl>
struct Shape_Interface {
void draw() {
TImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) i->draw();
}
};
template <typename TImpl>
struct Polygon_Interface : public Shape_Interface<Timpl> {
void addSegment(Point a, Point b) { ... }
};
class Shape : public TIntf<ShapeImpl>, public Shape_Interface<ShapeImpl> {...};
class Polygon : public TIntf<PolygonImpl>, public Polygon_Interface<PolygonImpl> {
public:
Polygon(PolygonImpl* i) : TIntf<PolygonImpl>(i) {}
};
But of course there's a problem here. I can't access GetImpl() from the Interface classes unless I derive them from Intf. And if I do that, I need to make Intf virtual everywhere it appears.
template <typename TImpl>
class PolygonInterface : public virtual Intf<TImpl> { ... };
class Polygon : public virtual Intf<PolygonImpl>, public PolygonInterface { ... }
OR I can store a TImpl*& in each Interface and construct them with a reference to the base Intf::impl. But that just means I have a pointer pointing back into myself for every interface included.
template <typename TImpl>
class PolygonInterface {
TImpl*& impl;
public:
PolygonInterface(TImpl*& i) : impl(i) {}
...};
Both of these solutions bloat the Intf class, add an extra dereference, and basically provide no benefit over straight polymorphism.
So, the question is, is there a third way, that I've missed that would solve this issue besides just duplicating the code everywhere (with its maintenance issues)?
TOTALLY SHOULD, BUT DOESN'T WORK: I wish there were base classes unions that just overlaid the class layouts and, for polymorphic classes, required that they have the exact same vtable layout. Then both Intf and ShapeInterface would each declare a single T* element and access it identically:
class Shape : public union Intf<ShapeImpl>, public union ShapeInterface<ShapeImpl> {};
I should note that your Impl class is nothing more than the reimplementation of a shared_ptr without the thread safety and all those cast bonuses.
Pimpl is nothing but a technic to avoid needless compile-time dependencies.
You do not need to actually know how a class is implemented to inherit from it. It would defeat the purpose of encapsulation (though your compiler does...).
So... I think that you are not trying to use Pimpl here. I would rather think this is a kind of Proxy patterns, since apparently:
Polygon1 numberOne;
Polygon2 numberTwo = numberOne;
numberTwo.changeData(); // affects data from numberOne too
// since they point to the same pointer!!
If you want to hide implementation details
Use Pimpl, but the real one, it means copying in depth during copy construction and assignment rather than just passing the pointer around (whether ref-counted or not, though ref-counted is preferable of course :) ).
If you want a proxy class
Just use a plain shared_ptr.
For inheritance
It does not matter, when you inherit from a class, how its private members are implemented. So just inherit from it.
If you want to add some new private members (usual case), then:
struct DerivedImpl;
class Derived: public Base // Base implemented with a Pimpl
{
public:
private:
std::shared_ptr<DerivedImpl> _data;
};
There is not much difference with classic implementation, as you can see, just that there is a pointer in lieu of a bunch of data.
BEWARE
If you forward declare DerivedImpl (which is the goal of Pimpl), then the destructor automatically generated by the compiler is... wrong.
The problem is that in order to generate the code for the destructor, the compiler needs the definition of DerivedImpl (ie: a complete type) in order to know how to destroy it, since a call to delete is hidden in the bowels of shared_ptr. However it may only generate a warning at compilation time (but you'll have a memory leak).
Furthermore, if you want an in-depth copy (rather than a shallow one, which consists in the copy and the original both pointing to the same DerivedImpl instance), you will also have to define manually the copy-constructor AND the assignment operator.
You may decide to create a better class that shared_ptr which will have deep-copy semantics (which could be called member_ptr as in cryptopp, or just Pimpl ;) ). This introduce a subtle bug though: while the code generated for the copy-constructor and the assignement operator could be thought of as correct, they are not, since once again you need a complete type (and thus the definition of DerivedImpl), so you will have to write them manually.
This is painful... and I'm sorry for you.
EDIT: Let's have a Shape discussion.
// Shape.h
namespace detail { class ShapeImpl; }
class Shape
{
public:
virtual void draw(Board& ioBoard) const = 0;
private:
detail::ShapeImpl* m_impl;
}; // class Shape
// Rectangle.h
namespace detail { class RectangleImpl; }
class Rectangle: public Shape
{
public:
virtual void draw(Board& ioBoard) const;
size_t getWidth() const;
size_t getHeight() const;
private:
detail::RectangleImpl* m_impl;
}; // class Rectangle
// Circle.h
namespace detail { class CircleImpl; }
class Circle: public Shape
{
public:
virtual void draw(Board& ioBoard) const;
size_t getDiameter() const;
private:
detail::CircleImpl* m_impl;
}; // class Circle
You see: neither Circle nor Rectangle care if Shape uses Pimpl or not, as its name implies, Pimpl is an implementation detail, something private that is not shared with the descendants of the class.
And as I explained, both Circle and Rectangle use Pimpl too, each with their own 'implementation class' (which can be nothing more than a simple struct with no method by the way).
I think you were right in that I didn't understand your question initially.
I think you're trying to force a square shape into a round hole... it don't quite fit C++.
You can force that your container holds pointers to objects of a given base-layout, and then allow objects of arbitrary composition to be actually pointed to from there, assuming that you as a programmer only actually place objects that in fact have identical memory layouts (member-data - there's no such thing as member-function-layout for a class unless it has virtuals, which you wish to avoid).
std::vector< boost::shared_ptr<IShape> > shapes;
NOTE at the absolute MINIMUM, you must still have a virtual destructor defined in IShape, or object deletion is going to fail miserably
And you could have classes which all take a pointer to a common implementation core, so that all compositions can be initialized with the element that they share (or it could be done statically as a template via pointer - the shared data).
But the thing is, if I try to create an example, I fall flat the second I try to consider: what is the data shared by all shapes? I suppose you could have a vector of Points, which then could be as large or small as any shape required. But even so, Draw() is truly polymorphic, it isn't an implementation that can possibly be shared by multiple types - it has to be customized for various classifications of shapes. i.e. a circle and a polygon cannot possibly share the same Draw(). And without a vtable (or some other dynamic function pointer construct), you cannot vary the function called from some common implementation or client.
Your first set of code is full of confusing constructs. Maybe you can add a new, simplified example that PURELY shows - in a more realistic way - what you're trying to do (and ignore the fact that C++ doesn't have the mechanics you want - just demonstrate what your mechanic should look like).
To my mind, I just don't get the actual practical application, unless you're tyring to do something like the following:
Take a COM class, which inherits from two other COM Interfaces:
class MyShellBrowserDialog : public IShellBrowser, public ICommDlgBrowser
{
...
};
And now I have a diamond inheritence pattern: IShellBrowser inherits ultimately from IUnknown, as does ICommDlgBrowser. But it seems incredibly silly to have to write my own IUnknown:AddRef and IUnknown::Release implementation, which is a highly standard implementation, because there's no way to cause the compiler to let another inherited class supply the missing virtual functions for IShellBrowser and/or ICommDlgBrowser.
i.e., I end up having to:
class MyShellBrowserDialog : public IShellBrowser, public ICommDlgBrowser
{
public:
virtual ULONG STDMETHODCALLTYPE AddRef(void) { return ++m_refcount; }
virtual ULONG STDMETHODCALLTYPE Release(void) { return --m_refcount; }
...
}
because there's no way I know of to "inherit" or "inject" those function implementations into MyShellBrowserDialog from anywhere else which actually fill-in the needed virtual member function for either IShellBrowser or ICommDlgBrowser.
I can, if the implementations were more complex, manually link up the vtable to an inherited implementor if I wished:
class IUnknownMixin
{
ULONG m_refcount;
protected:
IUnknonwMixin() : m_refcount(0) {}
ULONG AddRef(void) { return ++m_refcount; } // NOTE: not virutal
ULONG Release(void) { return --m_refcount; } // NOTE: not virutal
};
class MyShellBrowserDialog : public IShellBrowser, public ICommDlgBrowser, private IUnknownMixin
{
public:
virtual ULONG STDMETHODCALLTYPE AddRef(void) { return IUnknownMixin::AddRef(); }
virtual ULONG STDMETHODCALLTYPE Release(void) { return IUnknownMixin::Release(); }
...
}
And if I needed the mix-in to actually refer to the most-derived class to interact with it, I could add a template parameter to IUnknownMixin, to give it access to myself.
But what common elements could my class have or benefit by that IUnknownMixin couldn't itself supply?
What common elements could any composite class have that various mixins would want to have access to, which they needed to derive from themselves? Just have the mixins take a type parameter and access that. If its instance data in the most derived, then you have something like:
template <class T>
class IUnknownMixin
{
T & const m_outter;
protected:
IUnknonwMixin(T & outter) : m_outter(outter) {}
// note: T must have a member m_refcount
ULONG AddRef(void) { return ++m_outter.m_refcount; } // NOTE: not virtual
ULONG Release(void) { return --m_outter.m_refcount; } // NOTE: not virtual
};
Ultimately your question remains somewhat confusing to me. Perhaps you could create that example that shows your preferred-natural-syntax that accomplishes something clearly, as I just don't see that in your initial post, and I can't seem to sleuth it out from toying with these ideas myself.
I have seen lots of solutions to this basic conundrum: polymorphism + variation in interfaces.
One basic approach is to provide a way to query for extended interfaces - so you have something along the lines of COM programming under Windows:
const unsigned IType_IShape = 1;
class IShape
{
public:
virtual ~IShape() {} // ensure all subclasses are destroyed polymorphically!
virtual bool isa(unsigned type) const { return type == IType_IShape; }
virtual void Draw() = 0;
virtual void Erase() = 0;
virtual void GetBounds(std::pair<Point> & bounds) const = 0;
};
const unsigned IType_ISegmentedShape = 2;
class ISegmentedShape : public IShape
{
public:
virtual bool isa(unsigned type) const { return type == IType_ISegmentedShape || IShape::isa(type); }
virtual void AddSegment(const Point & a, const Point & b) = 0;
virtual unsigned GetSegmentCount() const = 0;
};
class Line : public IShape
{
public:
Line(std::pair<Point> extent) : extent(extent) { }
virtual void Draw();
virtual void Erase();
virtual void GetBounds(std::pair<Point> & bounds);
private:
std::pair<Point> extent;
};
class Polygon : public ISegmentedShape
{
public:
virtual void Draw();
virtual void Erase();
virtual void GetBounds(std::pair<Point> & bounds);
virtual void AddSegment(const Point & a, const Point & b);
virtual unsigned GetSegmentCount() const { return vertices.size(); }
private:
std::vector<Point> vertices;
};
Another option would be to make a single richer base interface class - which has all the interfaces you need, and then to simply define a default, no-op implementation for those in the base class, which returns false or throws to indicate that it isn't supported by the subclass in question (else the subclass would have provided a functional implementation for this member function).
class Shape
{
public:
struct Unsupported
{
Unsupported(const std::string & operation) : bad_op(operation) {}
const std::string & AsString() const { return bad_op; }
std::string bad_op;
};
virtual ~Shape() {} // ensure all subclasses are destroyed polymorphically!
virtual void Draw() = 0;
virtual void Erase() = 0;
virtual void GetBounds(std::pair<Point> & bounds) const = 0;
virtual void AddSegment(const Point & a, const Point & b) { throw Unsupported("AddSegment"); }
virtual unsigned GetSegmentCount() const { throw Unsupported("GetSegmentCount"); }
};
I hope that this helps you to see some possibilities.
Smalltalk had the wonderful attribute of being able to ask the meta-type-system whether a given instance supported a particular method - and it supported having a class-handler that could execute anytime a given instance was told to perform an operation it didn't support - along with what operation that was, so you could forward it as a proxy, or you could throw a different error, or simply quietly ignore that operation as a no-op).
Objective-C supports all of those same modalities as Smalltalk! Very, very cool things can be accomplished by having access to the type-system at runtime. I assume that .NET can pull of some crazy cool stuff along those lines (though I doubt that its nearly as elegant as Smalltalk or Objective-C, from what I've seen).
Anyway, ... good luck :)