multiple inheritance for function only - without virtual and CRTP - c++

Question

How to do multiple inheritance just for function?
must share data of the base class
no virtual function (assume that vtable is expensive)
avoid virtual inheritance
implementation must be able to reside in .cpp
c++14 is allowed
Here are similar questions :-
Multiple inheritance in diamond shape with functions only - use virtual inheritance. Virtual inheritance is generally bad and expensive.
multiple inheritance without virtual inheritance - focuses on syntax and compiling rather than programming technique.
Multilevel inheritance in c++ (CRTP) , CRTP and multilevel inheritance , Eliminate redundancy with CRTP and multiple inheritance (C++03) and Using CRTP with virtual inheritance - implementation must be in header
Here is a sample code (coliru demo) :-
class O{
protected: int database=0;
};
class A : public O{
public: void print(){
std::cout<<database<<std::endl;
}
};
class B : public O{
public: void set(int s){
database=s+1;
}
};
class AB : public O{
public: void print(){//duplicate
std::cout<<database<<std::endl;
}
public: void set(int s){//duplicate
database=s+1;
}
};
//AB ab; ab.set(1); ab.print(); // would print 2
Here is my attempt (wandbox demo). I abuse CRTP :( :-
class O{
public: int database=0;
};
template<class T>class OA{
public: void print(){
std::cout<<static_cast<T*>(this)->database<<std::endl;
}
};
template<class T>class OB{
public: void set(int s){
static_cast<T*>(this)->database=s+1;
}
};
class A :public O,public OA<A>{};
class B :public O,public OB<B>{};
class AB :public O,public OA<AB>,public OB<AB>{};
It works, but it looks inelegant.
Furthermore, implementation must be in header (because OA and OB are template classes).
Are there better approaches? Or is this the way to go?
Sorry if it is too newbie question or already asked. I am a C++ beginner.
Edit
Give extended example of using please.
In ECS, it would be useful in some cases :-
class O{
protected: EntityHandle e;
};
class ViewAsPhysic : public O{ //A
public: void setTransform(Transformation t){
Ptr<PhysicTransformComponent> g=e;
g->transform=t;
}
};
class ViewAsLight : public O{ //B
public: void setBrightness(int t){
Ptr<LightComponent> g=e;
g->clan=t;
}
};
class ViewAsLightBlock : public O{ //AB
//both functions
};

Answer 1

The problem here is that the database field is member of class O. So without virtual inheritance, A and B will have each their own copy of database. So you must find a way to force A and B to share same value. You could for example use a reference field initialized in a protected constructor:
#include <iostream>
class O{
int _db;
protected: int &database;
O(): database(_db) {};
O(int &db): database(db) {};
};
class A : public O{
public: void print(){
std::cout<<database<<std::endl;
}
A() {} // public default ctor
protected: A(int& db): O(db) {}; // protectect ctor
};
class B : public O{
public: void set(int s){
database=s+1;
}
B() {} // public default ctor
protected: B(int& db): O(db) {}; // protectect ctor
};
class AB : public A, public B {
int _db2;
public: AB(): A(_db2), B(_db2) {}; // initialize both references to same private var
};
int main() {
AB ab;
ab.set(1);
ab.print();
return 0;
}
displays as expected:
2
Above code uses no virtual inheritance, no virtual function and no templates, so method can safely implemented in cpp files. The class AB actually uses methods from its both parents and has still a coherent view on its underlying data. In fact it simulates an explicit virtual inheritance by building the common data in the most derived class and injecting in through protected constructors in its parents.

Answer 2

Something like this?
must share data of the base class - check
no virtual function (assume that vtable is expensive) - check
avoid virtual inheritance - check
implementation must be able to reside in .cpp- check
c++14 is allowed - check. c++11 used.
#include <iostream>
class O {
protected:
int database = 0;
};
/*
* the concept of implementing print for a base class
*/
template<class...Bases>
struct implements_print : Bases... {
void print() const {
std::cout << this->database << std::endl;
}
};
/*
* The concept of implementing set for a base class
*/
template<class...Bases>
struct implements_set : Bases... {
void set() {
++this->database;
}
};
struct B : implements_set<O> {
};
struct A : implements_print<O> {
};
struct AB : implements_set<implements_print<O>> {
};
int main() {
A a;
a.print();
B b;
b.set();
AB ab;
ab.set();
ab.print();
}
Another way, using composition and an access class to provide access to the protected member. This example shows how to defer the work on database to another compilation unit:
#include <iostream>
/*
* this stuff in cpp
*/
namespace implementation
{
void print(const int& database) {
std::cout << database << std::endl;
}
void set(int& database) {
++database;
}
}
/*
* this stuff in header
*/
struct OAccess;
class O {
private:
int database = 0;
friend OAccess;
};
struct OAccess {
template<class Host>
constexpr decltype(auto) database(Host &host) const { return (host.database); } // note: () makes reference
template<class Host>
constexpr decltype(auto) database(Host const &host) const { return (host.database); } // note: () makes reference
};
/*
* the concept of implementing print for a derived class
*/
template<class Host>
struct implements_print {
void print() const {
OAccess access;
implementation::print(access.database(self()));
}
private:
decltype(auto) self() const { return static_cast<Host const &>(*this); }
};
/*
* The concept of implementing set for a derived class
*/
template<class Host>
struct implements_set {
void set() {
OAccess access;
implementation::set(access.database(self()));
}
private:
decltype(auto) self() { return static_cast<Host &>(*this); }
};
template<template<class> class...Impls>
struct OImpl : Impls<OImpl<Impls...>> ..., O {
};
using B = OImpl<implements_set>;
using A = OImpl<implements_print>;
using AB = OImpl<implements_print, implements_set>;
int main() {
A a;
a.print();
B b;
b.set();
AB ab;
ab.set();
ab.print();
}

Answer 3

We start with defining the concepts of things that can print and things that can be set:
namespace util {
template<class Base, class Derived, class R=void>
using if_base = std::enable_if_t< std::is_base_of< std::decay_t<Base>, std::decay_t<Derived>>::value, R >;
struct stub {};
}
namespace concepts {
template<class Token>
void do_print(Token, util::stub const&)=delete;
template<class Token>
void do_set(Token, util::stub&, int)=delete;
struct has_print {
struct token { friend struct has_print; private: token(int){} };
template<class T>
friend util::if_base<has_print, T> print(T const& t) {
do_print(get_token(), t);
}
private: static token get_token() { return 0; }
};
struct has_set {
struct token { friend struct has_set; private: token(int){} };
template<class T>
friend util::if_base<has_set, T> set(T& t, int x) {
do_set(get_token(),t, x);
}
private: static token get_token() { return 0; }
};
}
We then declare O and the operations you can support on it:
namespace DB {
class O;
void do_print(::concepts::has_print::token, O const& o);
void do_set(::concepts::has_set::token, O& o, int);
class O{
protected: int database=0;
friend void do_print(::concepts::has_print::token, O const&);
friend void do_set(::concepts::has_set::token, O&, int);
};
class A : public O, public concepts::has_print {
};
class B : public O, public concepts::has_set {
};
class AB : public O, public concepts::has_print, concepts::has_set {
};
}
void DB::do_print(::concepts::has_print::token, O const& o ) { std::cout << o.database << std::endl; }
void DB::do_set(::concepts::has_set::token, O& o, int x) { o.database = x+1; }
The hard part of this is the access control.
I ensure it isn't possible to call do_set except through has_set::set.
That is what all those tokens are about. You can strip them out and their overhead if you are willing to just say "don't call the do_ functions" (and maybe give them another name, like private_impl_set).
Live example.

Answer 4

To start discussion.
class O
{
// no virtual destructor. So cant use polymorphic deletion
// like :
// O *o = new AB;
// delete o;
protected: int database=0;
};
class A : virtual public O{
public: void print(){
std::cout<<database<<std::endl;
}
};
class B : virtual public O{
public: void set(int s){
database=s+1;
}
};
class AB : protected A, protected B{}; // no vtable
void foo() {
AB ab;
ab.print(); // won't perform virtual call.
}