I have two base classes and derivered versions that overload / override certain parts like this:
class base
{
public:
int X = 1;
};
class deriv : public base
{
public:
int X = 2;
};
class A
{
public:
base K;
virtual void doSmth()
{
std::cout << "A" << std::endl;
smthElse();
}
virtual void smthElse()
{
std::cout << K.X << std::endl;
}
};
class B : public A
{
public:
deriv K;
void doSmth()
{
std::cout << "B" << std::endl;
smthElse();
}
};
the application looks like this
int main()
{
A instanceA;
B instanceB;
instanceA.doSmth();
instanceB.doSmth();
getchar();
return 0;
}
And the output therefore is X=1 for both instances A and B. I was wondering why that is.
A uses base (X=1) and B uses deriv (X=2). deriv overloads X and B overloads K. Is this because the function smthElse() is only defined in A, thus A can't know about the existance of the overloaded variable K?
If so, is there a way for the function smthElse() to use the overloaded variable K?
I found the using keyword but also adding a using A::smthElse; in B won't change the behaviour of X not being printed as 2. The only way I can achieve this is by copying the function smthElse() from A and insert it into B.
Is there a different way to achieve what I'm looking for? Since it seems like an overkill to copy'n'paste the same function into B just to use an overridden variable.
Thanks in advance!
instanceB has two variables named K, A::K and B::K. However, the base class, A, only knows about one K, A::K.
That explains the output.
If so, is there a way for the function smthElse() to use the overloaded variable K?
Yes, you can do that by adding a virtual function in A that returns a reference to base and adding a virtual function in base that returns a reference to i.
class base
{
public:
int& getX( return X;}
private:
int X = 1;
};
class deriv : public base
{
public:
int& getX( return X;}
private:
int X = 2;
};
class A
{
public:
base& getK() { return K; }
virtual void doSmth()
{
std::cout << "A" << std::endl;
smthElse();
}
virtual void smthElse()
{
std::cout << getK().getX() << std::endl;
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ use the virtual functions
}
public:
base K;
};
class B : public A
{
public:
deriv& getK(){ return K; }
void doSmth()
{
std::cout << "B" << std::endl;
smthElse();
}
public:
base K;
};
PS I hope this is just curiosity and you don't write production code with such style. You will end up confusing yourself and anybody who tries to understand your code.
When you write
virtual void smthElse()
{
std::cout << K.X << std::endl;
}
smthElse is virtual
K is not (a member variable could not be virtual: it has no meaning for an attribute).
In other terms, it means that B::smthElse will ovevrride A::smthElse but B::K and A::K are two distinct, unrelated and independent variables.
When smthElse is called in the context of a B, K still means A::K.
As a solution, you might create a virtual accessor to Ks:
class base { ...};
class deriv{ ...};
class A
{
base K;
public:
virtual const base& theK() { return K; }
virtual void smthElse() { std::cout << theK().X << "\n"; }
};
class B : public A
{
deriv K;
public:
virtual const base& theK() { return K; }
};
When B{}.smthElse() is called, it will call B::theK() which will return B::K (a deriv instance).
Related
I not sure how to ask this but basically i pass a base class as an parameter and if the argument is a derived class from the base class i want to be able to access properties only in the derived class
class A{
public:
bool isB = false;
int x = 69;
}
class B : public A{
public:
bool isB = true;
int y = 420;
}
void Print(A c){
if (c.isB)
cout << c.y << endl; //this will error as the class A has no y even though i will pass class B as an argument
else
cout << c.x << endl;
}
A a;
B b;
Print(a);
Print(b);
My recommendation is that you use polymorphism by creating a virtual "print" function that your global Print function calls:
class A
{
int x = 69;
public:
virtual ~A() = default; // Needed for polymorphic classes
virtual void print(std::ostream& out) const
{
out << x;
}
};
class B : public A
{
int y = 420;
public:
void print(std::ostream& out) const override
{
out << y;
}
};
void Print(A const& o)
{
o.print(std::cout);
std::cout << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
A a;
B b;
Print(a);
Print(b);
}
You need to define a virtual function "bool amIaB()" in both base and derived class that returns "isB".
I understand how C++ solves the diamond problem in multiple inheritance by using virtual inheritance. Suppose the following situation:
class A {
int num;
public:
int get_num() const { return num; }
};
class B : public A {
void foob() { int x = get_num(); }
};
class C : public A {
void fooc() { int x = get_num(); }
};
class D : public B, public C {
void food() { int x = get_num(); }
};
The get_num() call is ambiguous inside food(). I know I can fix it either by calling A::get_num() or by virtual inheritance using virtual public A. But I can see a third approach:
class A {
int num;
public:
int get_num() const { return num; }
};
class B : public A {
void foob() { int x = get_num(); }
};
class C { // won't inherit from A anymore
const A& base; // instead keeps a reference to A
void fooc() { int x = base.get_num(); }
public:
explicit C(const A* b) : base(*b) { } // receive reference to A
};
class D : public B, public C {
void food() { int x = get_num(); }
public:
D() : C(this) { } // pass "this" pointer
};
The external code doesn't need to consider C as an A.
Considering it has no impacts on my particular class hierarchy design, are there any advantages of the third approach over the virtual inheritance way? Or, in terms of cost, it ends up being the same thing?
Congratulations ! You've just re-invented the principle of composition over inheritance !
If this works with your design, it means that C was in fact not a kind of A, and there was no real justification to use inheritance in first place.
But don't forget the rule of 5 ! While your approach should work in principle, you have a nasty bug here : with your current code, if you copy a D object, its clone uses the wrong reference to the base (it doesn't refer to it's own base, which can lead to very nasty bugs...
Demo of the hidden problem
Let's make A::get_num() a little bit more wordy, so that it tells us about the address of the object that invokes it:
int get_num() const {
cout << "get_num for " << (void*)this <<endl;
return num;
}
Let's add a member function to C, for the purpose of the demo:
void show_oops() { fooc(); }
And same for D:
void show() { food(); }
Now we can experiment the problem by running this small snippet:
int main() {
D d;
cout<<"d is "<<(void*)&d<<endl;
d.show();
d.show_oops();
D d2=d;
cout<<"d2 is "<<(void*)&d2<<endl;
d2.show();
d2.show_oops();
}
Here an online demo. You will notice that d2 does produce inconsistent results, like here:
d is 0x7fffe0fd11a0
get_num for 0x7fffe0fd11a0
get_num for 0x7fffe0fd11a0
d2 is 0x7fffe0fd11b0
get_num for 0x7fffe0fd11b0
get_num for 0x7fffe0fd11a0 <<< OUCH !! refers to the A element in d !!
Not only do you refer to the wrong object, but if the d object would decease, you would have a dangling reference, so UB.
I am facing the following problem with my code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Base {
public:
virtual void sayHello()=0;
};
class Impl1 : public Base {
public:
void sayHello() { cout << "Hi from Impl1" << endl; }
};
class Impl2 : public Base {
public:
void sayHello() { cout << "Hi from Impl2" << endl; }
};
void sayHello(Impl1 *i) {
cout << "Impl1 says: ";
i->sayHello();
}
void sayHello(Impl2 *i) {
cout << "Impl2 says: ";
i->sayHello();
}
int main()
{
Impl1 *i1 = new Impl1();
Base *b = i1;
sayHello(b);
return 0;
}
And here the compiler complains about the sayHello(b); line in the
code.
"call of overloaded 'sayHello(Base*&)' is ambiguous"
Is there a way to solve this problem?
EDIT:
I basically want to pass my object to a function that does some calculations based on the type of the object. My object intentionally lacks of information in order to make the needed calculations. So Impl1 and Impl2 just contain some basic data, without the knowledge of more data needed to do the calculations.
Overload resolution is performed at compile time. It means for sayHello(b);, the compiler only know that the type of b is Base*, it won't and can't know that b is pointing to a Impl1 object actually. Then results in ambiguous call; converting Base* to Impl1* or Impl2* is equivalent rank for the call.
PS: might be OT, but for you code sample, a function taking a Base* would work fine; dynamic dispach will take effect.
class Base {
public:
virtual void sayHello()=0;
};
class Impl1 : public Base {
public:
void sayHello() { cout << "Hi from Impl1" << endl; }
};
class Impl2 : public Base {
public:
void sayHello() { cout << "Hi from Impl2" << endl; }
};
void sayHello(Base *i) {
cout << "Some derived class of Base says: ";
i->sayHello();
}
int main()
{
Impl1 i1;
Impl2 i2;
Base *b = &i1;
sayHello(b); // "Hi from Impl1"
b = &i2;
sayHello(b); // "Hi from Impl2"
return 0;
}
If you need to know the dynamic type at run-time, you can use dynamic_cast. e.g.
Base *b = /* something */;
Impl1 * pi1 = dynamic_cast<Impl1*>(b);
if (pi1 != nullptr) sayHello(pi1);
Since overloads are resolved at compile time, you have to supply the compiler with the exact type in order for the overload resolution to succeed.
In order to dispatch on the type, add a virtual member function to the Base, and use it to choose the overload:
class Base {
public:
virtual void sayHello()=0;
virtual void callSayHello() = 0;
};
class Impl1 : public Base {
public:
void sayHello() { cout << "Hi from Impl1" << endl; }
void callSayHello() {sayHello(this); }
};
class Impl2 : public Base {
public:
void sayHello() { cout << "Hi from Impl2" << endl; }
void callSayHello() {sayHello(this); }
};
void sayHello(Impl1 *i) {
cout << "Impl1 says: ";
i->sayHello();
}
void sayHello(Impl2 *i) {
cout << "Impl2 says: ";
i->sayHello();
}
...
b->callSayHello();
Note that implementations of callSayHello are identical, but you cannot place them into Base class, because the type of this would be different.
Note: the idea for this implementation is borrowed from C++ implementation of the Visitor Pattern.
Get rid of the two free-standing functions and call b->sayHello(); directly:
Impl1 *i1 = new Impl1();
Base *b = i1;
b->sayHello();
Or use an ugly workaround with dynamic_cast:
Impl1 *i1 = new Impl1();
Base *b = i1;
sayHello(dynamic_cast<Impl1*>(b));
The need to resort to dynamic_cast often suggests an error in the class design. This may very well be the case here. Chances are that you should never have introduced a supposedly object-oriented base class in the first place.
Note also that you do not call delete at the end. If you do, you will need a virtual destructor in Base.
I need an array of pointers to member functions in a base class like this
class Base {
public:
typedef int(Base::*func)();
func f[3];
Base();
void run();
};
void Base::run()
{
cout << (this->*f[0])() << endl;
cout << (this->*f[1])() << endl;
cout << (this->*f[2])() << endl;
}
The function run() will be the same for all child classes. But pointers in the array f[] will refer to member functions that will be defined in the child classes.
class Child: public Base {
public:
typedef int(Child::*func)();
func f[3];
int A();
int B();
int C();
Child();
};
int Child::A()
{
return 1;
}
int Child::B()
{
return 2;
}
int Child::C()
{
return 3;
}
Child::Child()
{
f[0] = &Child::A;
f[1] = &Child::B;
f[2] = &Child::C;
}
If I run this code in program I get problems
Child x;
x.run();
How to do this?
This works:
class Base {
public:
typedef int(Base::*func)();
func f[3];
virtual int A() { return 0; }
virtual int B() { return 0; }
virtual int C() { return 0; }
Base() {};
void run()
{
cout << (this->*f[0])() << endl;
cout << (this->*f[1])() << endl;
cout << (this->*f[2])() << endl;
}
};
class Child: public Base {
public:
int A() { return 1; }
int B() { return 2; }
int C() { return 3; }
Child()
{
f[0] = &Base::A;
f[1] = &Base::B;
f[2] = &Base::C;
}
};
You're facing two major obstacles here.
One, you never initialize the Base::f but that is what run operates on. You declare a member f in the child class and initialize it in the constructor. The Base classes f is never initialized, and is filled with garbage. When you call run, it tries to use those random values. This is undefined behavior.
Two, int(Base::*)() and int(Child::*)() are two distinct and incompatible types. You look like you want to fill the array with pointers to child functions and call them from the base class.
There are a couple ways to fix this:
You could make run virtual and implement it in the child class to call the functions.
You could put the functions in the base class and make them virtual, so pointers to them will call the derived versions.
You could make an array of std::function objects instead of pointers.
I'm trying to create an array of pointers using polymorphism. I will have the array of the superclass point to multiple subclasses. Is there anyway of doing this and still using a method from the subclass? Here's a sample code:
#include <iostream>
class Test1
{
public:
Test1()
: x(1)
{}
int get_x()
{
return x;
}
private:
int x;
};
class Test2 : public Test1
{
public:
Test2()
: y(2)
{}
void print()
{
std::cout << get_x() << ' ' << y << std::endl;
}
private:
int y;
};
class Test3 : public Test1
{
public:
Test3()
: y(3)
{}
void print()
{
std::cout << get_x() << ' ' << y << std::endl;
}
private:
int y;
};
int main()
{
Test1** test = new Test1*[2];
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++)
{
if (i % 2 == 0)
{
test[i] = NULL;
test[i] = new Test2;
}
else
{
test[i] = NULL;
test[i] = new Test3;
}
}
test[0]->print(); // ERROR. Is this even possible?
test[1]->print(); // ERROR. Is this even possible?
return 0;
}
Thank you I've only been coding for about 8 months.
test[0]->print(); // ERROR. Is this even possible?
In general, yes. However, not with your code.
If Test1 is going to be your base class and you're going to use new then it must have a virtual destructor (e.g., virtual ~Test1() {})
This is necessary for delete to work correctly when deleting a derived type via a pointer to the base class
Any function you want to call using a pointer to the base class must exist on the base class (i.e., you need a print function in Test1)
If you want the derived classes to have their own implementation of print then it must be declared virtual in the base class (e.g., virtual void print();)
If it dosn't make sense for Test1 to have an implementation of the print function then it can declare it pure virtual and not provide an implementation (e.g., virtual void print() = 0;) thus making it an abstract class
It would be if Test1 had such a member function named print. Your code doesn't compile as-is because Test::print doesn't exist. So at the very least, you will have to define that member function. For it to be truly polymorphic, as the intent of the question suggests, you should make Test::print a virtual member function so that Test2's and Test3's implementations of that function would get called instead:
class Test1 {
...
virtual void print() {
std::cout << "Test1" << std::endl;
}
...
};
For more information, see this tutorial on virtual functions.