I know I don't need to declare an overriding function in a subclass as virtual. But if I'm using a virtual function in a sub-subclass do I need to declare the subclass function as virtual?
struct Base
{
virtual int foo();
};
struct Derived : Base
{
virtual int foo() override
{
// ...
}
};
struct DoubleDerived : Derived
{
int foo() override
{
// ...
}
};
You don't have to, the function is virtual anyways, but it makes it unquestionably clear. Previously (before override was available) you could override some function and then if the function was changed in base class your derived class wouldn't override it anymore and the code would compile without any issues. Your function in derived class wouldn't override anything and would become non-virtual.
With override compiler will prevent this kind of mistakes and the function cannot magically become non-virtual if base is changed. In other words, if override or final is used, it's implied that the function is virtual, it would be compilation error otherwise.
I just found Core guideline C.128 that states:
Virtual functions should specify exactly one of virtual, override, or final.
Related
My basic understanding is that there is no implementation for a pure virtual function, however, I was told there might be implementation for pure virtual function.
class A {
public:
virtual void f() = 0;
};
void A::f() {
cout<<"Test"<<endl;
}
Is code above OK?
What's the purpose to make it a pure virtual function with an implementation?
A pure virtual function must be implemented in a derived type that will be directly instantiated, however the base type can still define an implementation. A derived class can explicitly call the base class implementation (if access permissions allow it) by using a fully-scoped name (by calling A::f() in your example - if A::f() were public or protected). Something like:
class B : public A {
virtual void f() {
// class B doesn't have anything special to do for f()
// so we'll call A's
// note that A's declaration of f() would have to be public
// or protected to avoid a compile time problem
A::f();
}
};
The use case I can think of off the top of my head is when there's a more-or-less reasonable default behavior, but the class designer wants that sort-of-default behavior be invoked only explicitly. It can also be the case what you want derived classes to always perform their own work but also be able to call a common set of functionality.
Note that even though it's permitted by the language, it's not something that I see commonly used (and the fact that it can be done seems to surprise most C++ programmers, even experienced ones).
To be clear, you are misunderstanding what = 0; after a virtual function means.
= 0 means derived classes must provide an implementation, not that the base class can not provide an implementation.
In practice, when you mark a virtual function as pure (=0), there is very little point in providing a definition, because it will never be called unless someone explicitly does so via Base::Function(...) or if the Base class constructor calls the virtual function in question.
The advantage of it is that it forces derived types to still override the method but also provides a default or additive implementation.
If you have code that should be executed by the deriving class, but you don't want it to be executed directly -- and you want to force it to be overriden.
Your code is correct, although all in all this isn't an often used feature, and usually only seen when trying to define a pure virtual destructor -- in that case you must provide an implementation. The funny thing is that once you derive from that class you don't need to override the destructor.
Hence the one sensible usage of pure virtual functions is specifying a pure virtual destructor as a "non-final" keyword.
The following code is surprisingly correct:
class Base {
public:
virtual ~Base() = 0;
};
Base::~Base() {}
class Derived : public Base {};
int main() {
// Base b; -- compile error
Derived d;
}
You'd have to give a body to a pure virtual destructor, for example :)
Read: http://cplusplus.co.il/2009/08/22/pure-virtual-destructor/
(Link broken, use archive)
Pure virtual functions with or without a body simply mean that the derived types must provide their own implementation.
Pure virtual function bodies in the base class are useful if your derived classes wants to call your base class implementation.
Yes this is correct. In your example, classes that derive from A inherit both the interface f() and a default implementation. But you force derived classes to implement the method f() (even if it is only to call the default implementation provided by A).
Scott Meyers discusses this in Effective C++ (2nd Edition) Item #36 Differentiate between inheritance of interface and inheritance of implementation. The item number may have changed in the latest edition.
The 'virtual void foo() =0;' syntax does not mean you can't implement foo() in current class, you can. It also does not mean you must implement it in derived classes.
Before you slap me, let's observe the Diamond Problem:
(Implicit code, mind you).
class A
{
public:
virtual void foo()=0;
virtual void bar();
}
class B : public virtual A
{
public:
void foo() { bar(); }
}
class C : public virtual A
{
public:
void bar();
}
class D : public B, public C
{}
int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
A* obj = new D();
**obj->foo();**
return 0;
}
Now, the obj->foo() invocation will result in B::foo() and then C::bar().
You see... pure virtual methods do not have to be implemented in derived classes (foo() has no implementation in class C - compiler will compile)
In C++ there are a lot of loopholes.
Hope I could help :-)
If I ask you what's the sound of an animal, the correct response is to ask which animal, that's exactly the purpose of pure virtual functions, or abstract function is when you cannot provide an implementation to your function in the base class (Animal) but each animal has its own sound.
class Animal
{
public:
virtual void sound() = 0;
}
class Dog : public Animal
{
public:
void sound()
{
std::cout << "Meo Meo";
}
}
One important use-case of having a pure virtual method with an implementation body, is when you want to have an abstract class, but you do not have any proper methods in the class to make it pure virtual. In this case, you can make the destructor of the class pure virtual and put your desired implementation (even an empty body) for that. As an example:
class Foo
{
virtual ~Foo() = 0;
void bar1() {}
void bar2(int x) {}
// other methods
};
Foo::~Foo()
{
}
This technique, makes the Foo class abstract and as a result impossible to instantiate the class directly. At the same time you have not added an additional pure virtual method to make the Foo class abstract.
I have a question about using the keyword final in C++. I understand that virtual function is a member function that is declared in the base class, and it is expected to be overridden in the derived classes. By dynamic binding, an appropriate method will be called, depending on the type of the object responsible for the call. However, to prevent a member function in a base class from being overridden in any derived class, we will use the final keyword.
void startEngine() final;// Compile error!
virtual void startEngine() final; //No error
Why we use "final" to PREVENT a member function in the base class from being overridden in derived class meanwhile we still have to use the keyword VIRTUAL (ALLOW to override) together.
I tried to delete the word virtual, but I got a compile error: "nonvirtual function cannot be declared with 'final' modifier"
First at all, we only can stop overriding functions if they can be overridden at all. So final only makes sense on virtual functions at all.
Still, final applied on a single class's virtual function might appear pretty meaningless. But if you consider a more complex hierarchy, matter changes:
class Parent
{
public:
virtual ~Parent() = default;
virtual void f();
};
class Child : public Parent
{
public:
void f() final; // f IS virtual already...
};
class GrandChild : public Child
{
// cannot override f any more – while Child still could!
};
Additionally, consider the following:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() = default;
void f(); // non-virtual! (i. e. cannot be overridden)
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void f(); // does not override, but HIDEs Base::f!!!
};
Declaring Base::f both virtual and final would prevent hiding as well (but not overloading).
Actually, again this scenario rather makes sense if Base itself already inherited from another polymorphic class. If not and Base is not intended to be inherited, I'd not introduce any virtual functions at all (virtual function calls are more costly than normal function calls!). If then a user still inherits and hides a function – well, his own responsibility...
I'd like to use the C++11 override specifier and noticed that it can be used together with virtual. Does this make a difference? Consider the following classes:
class Base
{
virtual void fct() = 0;
};
class Derived1 : public Base
{
void fct() override {}
};
class Derived2 : public Base
{
virtual void fct() override {}
};
Is there a technical difference between Derived1 and Derived2?
override is always used together with virtual. It is used to mandate that your virtual function overrides a virtual function in the base class.
An older rule means that, if it does override a virtual function in the base class, it's virtual automatically so you can skip writing the virtual out in your code. But "conceptually" the virtual is there already anyway.
So, writing virtual there will make no difference at all. Since you wrote override, the function must override a base class function (and, by extension, it must be virtual), otherwise your code won't compile.
In Cplusplus, in a derived class, if we define a member function to override a member function in its parent class, do we need to declare the one in the derived class to be virtual?
For example, do we need to declare g to be virtual in B in order for it to override A::g? which one of the following is correct for the above purpose?
class A{
public:
void f(){printf("A");}
virtual void g(){printf("A");}
}
class B : public A{
public:
void f(){printf("B");}
void g(){printf("B");}
}
or
class A{
public:
void f(){printf("A");}
virtual void g(){printf("A");}
}
class B : public A{
public:
void f(){printf("B");}
virtual void g(){printf("B");}
}
Thanks.
Once a method is virtual in a class, its child class has also these virtual class even if you don't add virtual to them.
Adding override is a good habit to avoid subtle error:
class A{
public:
void f() { printf("A"); }
virtual void g() { printf("A"); }
};
class B : public A{
public:
void f() { printf("B"); }
void g() override { printf("B"); }
};
No you don't. The function is virtual from the first point in the hierarchy where you declare it as such.
You can and should specify it as override in c++11 and onward. It specifies explicitly to the compiler that you are trying to override a virtual function in a base class. It than emits an error if you misspell the function name, mistype the parameters or do anything else that can be considered as adding an overload of the function. Prior to c++11, the previous mistakes would silently compile.
Defining member functions virtual in derived classes is optional. You can make the override explicit using C++11's override.
They both do the same thing. You don't need to explicitly say virtual in the derived class, as long as it is virtual in the base class.
In Cplusplus, in a derived class, if we define a member function to override a member function in its parent class, do we need to declare the one in the derived class to be virtual?
From the working draft, [class.virtual]/2 (emphasis mine):
If a virtual member function vf is declared in a class Base and in a class Derived, derived directly or indirectly from Base, a member function vf with the same name, parameter-type-list, cv-qualification, and ref-qualifier (or absence of same) as Base::vf is declared, then Derived::vf is also virtual (whether or not it is so declared) and it overrides Base::vf.
So, no. It is not required.
In pre-C++11 era, declaring virtual also the member functions in the derived classes helped the readers understanding what's going on under the hood.
Since C++11, override is the preferred way, for it not only helps the readers, but also it forces a compile-time check so that typos in the declarations don't introduce subtle errors.
This question is not duplicated because I add a condition "when both not defined in base class".
If in a base class C, I make a statement virtual void display(); and it is never defined in classs C, it is a virtual function. Am I right? If I make a statement like "virtual void display()=0;" it is a pure virtual function.
So in both situation, derived class must define the display function. So why should we need pure virtual function? Or what is the problem in my statement?
So in both situation, derived class must define the display function
Incorrect. Only pure virtual functions must be overridden by a derived class in order for that derived class to be concrete.
So why should we need pure virtual function?
To specify that a type is abstract, which prevents it's instantiation.
What is the difference between virtual function and pure virtual function in C++ in when both not defined in base class?
A pure virtual function is something that makes a class abstract, as I mentioned.
By declaring a function, you promise that there will be a definition for it. If there is no definition, then the program is ill formed. Pure virtual functions are exceptions in that it's not mandatory to define them (but you may). So in short, a non pure virtual without a definition is a bug.
"Pure virtual method" is just the name for a method, that has no definition in the class where it is declared. You must declare a pure virtual method as such to avoid linker errors. Consider this simple example:
/* abstract classes */
struct Broken { virtual void foo(); };
struct Fixed { virtual void foo()=0; };
/* implementations */
struct A : Broken { void foo(){} };
struct B : Fixed { void foo(){} };
int main() {
//Broken* a = new A(); delete a; // (*)
Fixed* a = new B(); delete a;
return 0;
}
(*) creates a linker error (even if the object that is created has a foo() definition). To tell the compiler that the method is pure virtual you must put the =0;.
[...]why must non-pure virtual function be defined in the base class?
Thats just how it is defined. There is something: Methods without definition in the base class. We give a name to it: pure virtual methods. It does not make sense to argue, why pure virtual have no definition in the base class or whether non-pure virtual methods are allowed to have no definition in the base class.