Please consider the following piece of code:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
enum Type { T1, T2 };
class Base {
public:
std::string baseName;
Type type;
Base(const std::string& bn, Type t):
baseName(bn), type(t) {}
};
class Derived1 : public Base
{
public:
std::string dName;
int x = 10;
Derived1(const std::string& bn, const std::string& dn):
Base(bn, Type::T1), dName("Dervied1"+dn) {}
int getX(void) const { return x; }
};
class Derived2 : public Base
{
public:
std::string dName;
int y = 20;
Derived2(const std::string& bn, const std::string& dn):
Base(bn, Type::T2), dName("Derived2"+dn){}
int getY(void) const { return y; }
};
void func(Base& b)
{
if (b.type == Type::T1)
{
Derived1& d1 = static_cast<Derived1&>(b);
std::cout << d1.baseName << " " << d1.dName << " " << d1.getX();
std::cout << std::endl;
}
else
{
Derived2& d2 = static_cast<Derived2&>(b);
std::cout << d2.baseName << " " << d2.dName << " " << d2.getY();
}
};
int main(void)
{
Derived1 d1("Base", "foo");
func(d1);
Derived2 d2("Base", "foo");
func(d2);
}
The requirement is to have a function that can take in the base class value and then depending on the "type" of the derived instance, do something different. My question is - is this the right way of doing things or am I missing some important design pattern. I remember reading that use of static_cast or dynamic_cast means that there is something inherently wrong with the design. I understand that ideally the base class can have virtual functions that the derived classes implement, and at run time they get polymorphically dispatched. However, in this case there are two functions in each derived class that are specific to those classes, viz. getX and getY. How can I change the design to make it better and perhaps not use the cast?
Thanks!
The requirement is to have a function that can take in the base class value and then depending on the "type" of the derived instance, do something different.
That is exactly what polymorphism is all about. But you are not using it the way it is meant to be used.
My question is - is this the right way of doing things
No.
am I missing some important design pattern.
This would be better handled by getting rid of Type altogether and introduce a virtual method in Base.
I understand that ideally the base class can have virtual functions that the derived classes implement, and at run time they get polymorphically dispatched.
Exactly.
However, in this case there are two functions in each derived class that are specific to those classes, viz. getX and getY.
So? Using polymorphism correctly does not prevent that.
How can I change the design to make it better and perhaps not use the cast?
Use polymorphism correctly. For example:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class Base
{
public:
std::string baseName;
Base(const std::string& bn):
baseName(bn) {}
virtual void doIt() = 0;
};
class Derived1 : public Base
{
public:
std::string dName;
int x = 10;
Derived1(const std::string& bn, const std::string& dn):
Base(bn), dName("Dervied1"+dn) {}
int getX(void) const { return x; }
void doIt() override
{
std::cout << baseName << " " << dName << " " << getX();
std::cout << std::endl;
}
};
class Derived2 : public Base
{
public:
std::string dName;
int y = 20;
Derived2(const std::string& bn, const std::string& dn):
Base(bn), dName("Derived2"+dn) {}
int getY(void) const { return y; }
void doIt() override
{
std::cout << baseName << " " << dName << " " << getY();
}
};
void func(Base& b)
{
b.doIt();
}
int main(void)
{
Derived1 d1("Base", "foo");
func(d1);
Derived2 d2("Base", "foo");
func(d2);
}
And then take it a step farther by moving common code around so it can be shared by the derived classes:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class Base
{
public:
std::string baseName;
Base(const std::string& bn):
baseName(bn) {}
virtual void doIt()
{
std::cout << baseName;
}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
std::string dName;
Derived(const std::string& bn, const std::string& dn):
Base(bn), dName(dn) {}
void doIt() override
{
Base::doIt();
std::cout << " " << dName;
}
};
class Derived1 : public Derived
{
public:
int x = 10;
Derived1(const std::string& bn, const std::string& dn):
Derived(bn, "Dervied1"+dn) {}
int getX(void) const { return x; }
void doIt() override
{
Derived::doIt();
std::cout << " " << getX();
std::cout << std::endl;
}
};
class Derived2 : public Derived
{
public:
int y = 20;
Derived2(const std::string& bn, const std::string& dn):
Derived(bn, "Derived2"+dn) {}
int getY(void) const { return y; }
void doIt() override
{
Derived::doIt();
std::cout << " " << getY();
}
};
void func(Base& b)
{
b.doIt();
}
int main(void)
{
Derived1 d1("Base", "foo");
func(d1);
Derived2 d2("Base", "foo");
func(d2);
}
If you have the option of using a virtual member function, as outlined by the other answer, it is the best approach to use. However, there are situations where you don't have that luxury. In that case, you can build your dispatch mechanism based on the type of the derived type.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <map>
class Base {
public:
std::string baseName;
Base(const std::string& bn): baseName(bn) {}
virtual ~Base() {}
// Don't store type ID per instance.
// Make it a virtual function so derived classes
// can return the same value for each instance.
virtual int getTypeID() = 0;
// Helper function for derived classes to use so each
// derived class can have a unique type id associated
// with it. This eliminates the need for having an enum.
static int getNextTypeID();
{
static int typeID = 0;
return ++typeID;
}
};
class Derived1 : public Base
{
public:
std::string dName;
int x = 10;
Derived1(const std::string& bn,
const std::string& dn):
Base(bn), dName("Dervied1"+dn) {}
// get type ID for this class.
// Every instance of the class will return
// same value.
virtual int getTypeID()
{
return getTypeIDStatic();
}
// This is a crucial piece of function
// that allows type based dispatch mechanism to work.
static int getTypeIDStatic()
{
static int typeID = Base::getNextTypeID();
return typeID;
}
int getX(void) const { return x; }
};
class Derived2 : public Base
{
public:
std::string dName;
int y = 20;
Derived2(const std::string& bn,
const std::string& dn):
Base(bn), dName("Derived2"+dn){}
int getY(void) const { return y; }
virtual int getTypeID()
{
return getTypeIDStatic();
}
static int getTypeIDStatic()
{
static int typeID = Base::getNextTypeID();
return typeID;
}
};
// Define a function type.
using Function = void (*)(Base& b);
// Keep a registry of functions that can be called for
// different types derived from Base.
std::map<int, Function>& getRegisteredFunctionsMap()
{
static std::map<int, Function> functionsMap;
return functionsMap;
}
// Provide a mechanism to register functions for types
// derived from Base.
template <typename T>
void registerFunction(Function f)
{
getRegisteredFunctionsMap()[T::getTypeIDStatic()] = f;
}
void func(Base& b)
{
// Check whether there is a function base on the type of b.
std::map<int, Function>& functionsMap = getRegisteredFunctionsMap();
std::map<int, Function>::iterator iter = functionsMap.find(b.getTypeID());
if ( iter != functionsMap.end() )
{
// If yes, call it.
iter->second(b);
}
else
{
// No function to deal with the type.
// Deal with the situation.
}
};
// A function that can be called when the real type is Derived1.
void derived1Fun(Base& b)
{
// Assume that b is derived.
Derived1& d1 = dynamic_cast<Derived1&>(b);
// Now use d1.
std::cout << d1.baseName << " " << d1.dName << " " << d1.getX();
std::cout << std::endl;
}
// A function that can be called when the real type is Derived2.
void derived2Fun(Base& b)
{
// Assume that b is Derived2.
Derived2& d2 = dynamic_cast<Derived2&>(b);
// Now use d2.
std::cout << d2.baseName << " " << d2.dName << " " << d2.getY();
std::cout << std::endl;
}
int main(void)
{
// Register functions for Derived1 and Derived2.
registerFunction<Derived1>(derived1Fun);
registerFunction<Derived2>(derived2Fun);
// Make the function calls.
Derived1 d1("Base", "foo");
func(d1);
Derived2 d2("Base", "foo");
func(d2);
}
Output of running the above program:
Base Dervied1foo 10
Base Derived2foo 20
Related
I would like to create a base class ==> derived class setup where the base class' constructor has a callback to run a (possibly complex) function to modify the base class' private member with information from the derived class. However, I'm running into a chicken and an egg problem because the base class constructor runs before the derived class' members are initialized. Here's the code to demonstrate the problem:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
class B
{
public:
typedef std::function<void(std::string &)> mod_func_t;
B(const mod_func_t &m) : foo("base str")
{
std::cout << "Base constructor\n";
m(foo);
std::cout << "base constructor finally has: " << foo << std::endl;
}
private:
std::string foo;
};
class D : public B
{
public:
D(const std::string &input) :
B(std::bind(&D::my_f, this, std::placeholders::_1)),
input_(input)
{
std::cout << "Derived constructor\n";
}
private:
void my_f(std::string &s)
{
std::cout << "Derived class' modification function\n";
s += input_; // <== Crashes here because input_ is not yet constructed
}
const std::string input_;
};
int main()
{
D d("my input");
return 0;
}
What is the correct way to do this?
One approach is to let D calculate the adjusted string before calling the constructor of B.
class D : public B {
D(std::string str)
: B(my_f(str))
{}
std::string my_f(std::string str) { return str + "..."; }
};
A second approach is to let the body of constructor D do some work. Here adjust_base could also be virtual.
class D : public B {
D(std::string str)
: B(str)
{
adjust_base();
}
void adjust_base();
};
I believe that CRTP could help you with this one..
There is a simple example:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
template <typename Derived>
class B
{
public:
B() : foo("base str")
{
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->m(foo);
std::cout << "Base constructor\n";
std::cout << "base constructor finally has: " << foo << std::endl;
}
void m(std::string& str) { //... }
private:
std::string foo;
friend Derived;
};
class D : public B<D>
{
public:
D(std::string &input) :
B(),
input_(input)
{
std::cout << "Derived constructor\n";
}
void m(const std::string& str) { //... }
private:
void my_f(std::string &s)
{
std::cout << "Derived class' modification function\n";
s += input_; // <== Crashes here because input_ is not yet constructed
}
const std::string input_;
};
int main()
{
D d("my input");
return 0;
}
I have two classes B andY which I cannot change or edit by requirement. They have functions doing the same thing but with different names.
I want to a have a common interfaces with selecting the class at run time depending on the some input variable as described in the code below. I am not sure which design pattern should I use. How to create WrapperYB class which selects Y::show or B::showing depending on the object created.
class A
{
public:
A() {}
virtual ~A();
virtual void show() { cout << "show A" << endl;}
};
class B:A
{
public:
B() {}
virtual ~B();
virtual void show() { cout << "show B" << endl;}
};
class X
{
char m_i;
public:
Y() { m_i = 'X';}
virtual void showing() { cout << "showing " << m_i << endl;}
};
class Y:X
{
public:
Y() { m_i = 'Y';}
virtual void showing() { cout << "showing " << m_i << endl;}
};
class WrapperYB
{
// to be implemented
public:
explicit WrapperYB(const int& type);
void show();
};
int main(){
WrapperYB objY(1);
objY.show(); // must call Y::showing
WrapperYB objB(0);
objB.show(); // must call B::show
}
If your compiler supports the C++17 Standard, you could try this solution using std::variant. This is a similar idea to the solution in #Nicolas's answer, but variant will take care of the implementation details for you, won't use dynamic memory allocation, and has support for additional things like copy and assignment.
#include <variant>
#include <utility>
#include <type_traits>
class WrapperYB {
public:
using variant_type = std::variant<Y, B>;
template <typename... Args,
std::enable_if_t<std::is_constructible_v<variant_type, Args...>>* = nullptr>
WrapperYB(Args&& ... args) : m_variant(std::forward<Args>(args)...) {}
variant_type& variant() noexcept { return m_variant; }
const variant_type& variant() const noexcept { return m_variant; }
void show()
{ std::visit(ShowImpl{}, m_variant); }
private:
struct ShowImpl {
void operator() (Y& y) const { y.showing(); }
void operator() (B& b) const { b.show(); }
};
variant_type m_variant;
};
See the full working example on coliru.
You might generalize the wrapper by letting it contain a std::unique_ptr<A> or std::unique_ptr<X> instead.
I'm proposing this:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
public:
A() {}
virtual ~A() {}
virtual void show() { cout << "show A" << endl;}
};
class B:A
{
public:
B() {}
virtual ~B() {}
virtual void show() { cout << "show B" << endl;}
};
class X
{
protected:
char m_i;
public:
X () { m_i = 'X';}
virtual void showing() { cout << "showing " << m_i << endl;}
};
class Y:X
{
public:
Y() { m_i = 'Y';}
virtual void showing() { cout << "showing " << m_i << endl;}
};
class WrapperYB
{
public:
enum class Which { B, Y };
public:
explicit WrapperYB (int n)
: which(Which(n))
{
switch (which)
{
case Which::B: ptr.b = new B; break;
case Which::Y: ptr.y = new Y; break;
}
}
~WrapperYB ()
{
switch (which)
{
case Which::B: delete ptr.b; break;
case Which::Y: delete ptr.y; break;
}
}
WrapperYB (const WrapperYB&) = delete;
WrapperYB& operator = (const WrapperYB&) = delete;
public:
void show()
{
switch (which)
{
case Which::B: ptr.b->show() ; break;
case Which::Y: ptr.y->showing(); break;
}
}
private:
Which which;
union {
Y* y;
B* b;
} ptr;
};
int main(){
WrapperYB objY(1);
objY.show(); // must call Y::showing
WrapperYB objB(0);
objB.show(); // must call B::show
}
It's not a "Vanilla" design pattern, I don't think, and more of combination of adapter and discriminated union.
Note that WrapperYB cannot be copied or assigned, as is.
You can use a standard virtual dispatch method with an abstract base adaptor class and subclasses for each object type needed. Create the object with a factory method.
#include <memory>
//pre-defined structures Y, B
struct Y
{
Y(){}
~Y(){}
void show(){}
};
struct B
{
B(){}
~B(){}
void showing(){}
};
// Abstract adaptor base class.
struct Adaptor
{
virtual void show() = 0;
};
// A subclass of Adaptor for each type of object to be wrapped.
struct Adaptor_Y: Adaptor
{
Adaptor_Y(): y(){}
void show() override
{
y.show();
}
private:
Y y;
};
struct Adaptor_B: Adaptor
{
Adaptor_B(): b(){}
void show() override
{
b.showing();
}
private:
B b;
};
// Factory method constructs the proper object and returns a pointer.
std::unique_ptr<Adaptor> get_adaptor(int flag)
{
if(flag == 0)
{
return std::make_unique<Adaptor_B>();
}
else if(flag == 1)
{
return std::make_unique<Adaptor_Y>();
}
else throw std::runtime_error("Invalid flag value");
}
I have two variants of the same method. I also have an instance of a base class type, but I don't know what specific class it is an instance of. I now want to automatically select the appropriate method depending on the actual type of the object. It seems impossible though and the only solution I can come up with is to check all possibilities by casting.
There has to be a nicer solution though.
Here is my minimal example:
// Example program
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <memory>
class A
{
public:
virtual void bar() const = 0;
};
class B : public A
{
public:
void bar() const
{
std::cout << "B.bar()" << std::endl;
}
};
class C : public A
{
public:
void bar() const
{
std::cout << "C.bar()" << std::endl;
}
};
class Z
{
public:
Z(int variable) : m_variable(variable) {};
void foo(std::shared_ptr<B> b)
{
std::cout << "Calling foo(B) method! " << m_variable << std::endl;
b->bar();
}
void foo(std::shared_ptr<C> c)
{
std::cout << "Calling foo(C) method!" << m_variable << std::endl;
c->bar();
}
private:
int m_variable;
};
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<A> b(new B());
Z z(42);
//z.foo(b); // This doesn't work
// But this does
std::shared_ptr<B> b_cast = std::dynamic_pointer_cast<B>(b);
if (b_cast.get())
z.foo(b_cast);
}
http://cpp.sh/9fqne
At the moment I have to resort to dynamic_pointer_cast, but I find it kinda ugly and not very maintainable.
I also don't want to add the functionality of foo() to the classes B and C, because those are small independent data structures on which many other classes operate.
Thank you very much!
EDIT: In the original post I simplified a bit too much. The new example should clear things up.
Add a pure virtual function foo() to your base class and override in subsequent derived classes. Then have your global function foo() (which has nothing to do with member functions with the same name) accept a reference to std::shared_ptr const as a parameter:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
class A{
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
class B : public A{
public:
void foo() override{
std::cout << "Calling foo(B) method!" << std::endl;
}
};
class C : public A{
public:
void foo() override{
std::cout << "Calling foo(C) method!" << std::endl;
}
};
void foo(const std::shared_ptr<A>& param){
param->foo();
}
int main(){
std::shared_ptr<A> b = std::make_shared<B>();
std::shared_ptr<A> c = std::make_shared<C>();
foo(b);
foo(c);
}
As BoBTFish pointed out, the visitor pattern is a potential solution for this problem:
// Example program
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <memory>
class B;
class C;
class Visitor
{
public:
virtual void visit(B* b) const = 0;
virtual void visit(C* b) const = 0;
};
class A
{
public:
virtual void bar() const = 0;
virtual void accept(const Visitor* visitor) = 0;
};
class B : public A
{
public:
void bar() const
{
std::cout << "B.bar()" << std::endl;
}
void accept(const Visitor* visitor)
{
visitor->visit(this);
}
};
class C : public A
{
public:
void bar() const
{
std::cout << "C.bar()" << std::endl;
}
void accept(const Visitor* visitor)
{
visitor->visit(this);
}
};
class Z : public Visitor
{
public:
Z(int variable) : m_variable(variable) {};
void visit(B* b) const
{
std::cout << "Calling foo(B) method! " << m_variable << std::endl;
b->bar();
}
void visit(C* c) const
{
std::cout << "Calling foo(C) method!" << m_variable << std::endl;
c->bar();
}
private:
int m_variable;
};
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<A> b(new B());
Z z(42);
b->accept(&z);
}
http://cpp.sh/2vah5
Thank you very much!
I need a base class that gives me primitive type of data's pointer. I add a function in it. I derived types of class. I used void * to support all primitive types as a return type but it is like old C days. It is not good for OOP. Does one have an suggestion to do in a proper way in OOP?
#include <iostream>
class base {
public:
virtual void *getPtr() = 0;
virtual ~base() {};
};
class derivedAType : public base {
protected:
int _i;
public:
derivedAType(int i): _i(0) { _i = i; };
virtual ~derivedAType() {}
virtual void *getPtr() {
return static_cast<void *>(&_i);
}
};
class derivedBType : public base {
protected:
short _s;
public:
derivedBType(short s): _s(0) { _s = s; };
virtual ~derivedBType() {}
virtual void *getPtr() {
return static_cast<void *>(&_s);
}
};
int main()
{
base *b1 = new derivedAType(1203912);
base *b2 = new derivedBType(25273);
std::cout << "b1 : " << *(static_cast<int *>(b1->getPtr()))
<< "\nb2 : " << *(static_cast<short *>(b2->getPtr()))
<< std::endl;
delete b2;
delete b1;
return 0;
}
Make the base class a template class with the data type as the template variable
template<typename DataType>
class base {
virtual DataType* getPtr() = 0;
//...
};
and
class derivedAType : public base<int>
But this changes base class to a template class which means you cant store them together, base<int> is different from base<short>
If this isnt acceptable, the other options is just a tad bit cleaner than your code but abt the same, refer to this question. Basically derived class return types can reflect their true type and i think it should get automatically converted to void*, so you dont have to manually cast the pointer.
Not sure about your problem. But maybe a double callback can help:
class Callback {
public:
virtual void do_int( int i ) const = 0;
virtual void do_short( short s ) const = 0;
/* ... */
}
class base {
public:
virtual void do_stuff(const Callback & c); /* will need a more telling name */
virtual ~base() {};
};
class derivedAType : public base {
protected:
int _i;
public:
derivedAType(int i): _i(0) { _i = i; };
virtual ~derivedAType() {}
virtual void do_stuff(const Callback & c) {
c.do_int( _i );
}
};
class derivedBType : public base {
protected:
short _s;
public:
derivedBType(short s): _s(0) { _s = s; };
virtual ~derivedBType() {}
virtual void do_stuff( const Callback & c) {
c.do_short( _s );
}
};
class print_callback : public Callback {
public:
virtual void do_int( int i ) const { std::cout << i; }
virtual void do_short( short s ) const { std::cout << s; }
}
int main() {
base *b1 = new derivedAType(1203912);
base *b2 = new derivedBType(25273);
std::cout << "b1 : ";
b1->do_stuff(print_callback());
std::cout << "\nb2 : ";
b2->do_stuff(print_callback());
std::cout << std::endl;
delete b2;
delete b1;
return 0;
}
Of course you can simplify this by just storing the created print callback, and using it twice.
I'm having a problem with abstract/virtual classes, a replication of the problem here:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
protected:
virtual std::string getDateTime() = 0;
virtual void Write(std::string data, bool addDate) = 0;
virtual bool CheckFile() = 0;
virtual bool OpenFile(std::string path) = 0;
virtual void CloseFile() = 0;
};
class B
: public A
{
public:
virtual std::string ToString() { return ""; };
virtual void Write(std::string data) { };
};
class C
: public A
{
protected:
std::string getDateTime()
{
return "TODAY";
};
void Write(std::string data, bool addDate)
{
std::cout << "BasicClassA Write" << std::endl;
};
bool CheckFile()
{
std::cout << "BasicClassA CheckFile" << std::endl;
return true;
};
bool OpenFile(std::string path)
{
std::cout << "BasicClassA OpenFile" << std::endl;
return true;
};
void CloseFile()
{
std::cout << "BasicClassA CloseFile" << std::endl;
};
};
class D
: public B,
public C
{
public:
BasicClassB();
virtual ~BasicClassB();
std::string ToString()
{
return "BasicClassB tostring";
};
void Write(std::string data)
{
std::cout << "BasicClassB Write" << std::endl;
};
};
int main(int ac, char *av[])
{
BasicClassB b;
std::cout << b.ToString() << std::endl;
b.Write("");
return 0;
}
This has a compile error:
../src/main.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
../src/main.cpp:82: error: cannot declare variable ‘b’ to be of abstract type ‘BasicClassB’
../src/main.cpp:64: note: because the following virtual functions are pure within ‘BasicClassB’:
../src/main.cpp:13: note: virtual std::string BaseClassA::getDateTime()
../src/main.cpp:14: note: virtual void BaseClassA::Write(std::string, bool)
../src/main.cpp:15: note: virtual bool BaseClassA::CheckFile()
../src/main.cpp:16: note: virtual bool BaseClassA::OpenFile(std::string)
../src/main.cpp:17: note: virtual void BaseClassA::CloseFile()
Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but the implementation of BaseClassA (being BasicClassA) should contain these functions, and since BasicClassB is subclassed from BasicClassA as well, it should also contain these functions?
What am I missing? What should I do to make this compile?
[edit]
I updated the class names as suggested by the comment
For clarification: I used pure virtual in the class A to force any of the children to implement the functions.
It seems virtual inheritance is what I need, however, I don't seem to get the correct way on how to do this in my case...
The goal is to have several "base" classes, kind of like interfaces, forcing the children to implement the functions, but any children of those should inherit the overriden function (just like virtual inheritance)
However, using any combination of
class Any : public virtual Anyother { }
doesn't work out and always gives the same compile error (the one above). Perhaps I need to change more than just the virtual in the inheritance?
It doesn't work that way by default in C++ - You want a diamond inheritance pattern, but in C++ you get separate roots: So BasicClassA and BaseClassB each have their own BaseClassA (vtable and instance variables).
You probably want to use Virtual Inheritance.
For a clearer idea on non-virtual inheritance:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A(int x) {m_a = x;}
virtual ~A() {}
int m_a;
virtual int getA() {return m_a;}
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() : A(1) {}
};
class C : public A
{
public:
C() : A(2) {}
};
class D : public B,
public C
{
};
void useB(B* b)
{
std::cout << "useB:" << b->getA() << std::endl;
}
void useC(C* c)
{
std::cout << "useC:" << c->getA() << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
D* d = new D();
useB(d);
useC(d);
return 0;
}
This produces the output:
useB:1
useC:2
This example shows virtual inheritance, and the kind of mix-in behaviour you want.
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A(int x) {m_a = x;}
virtual ~A() {}
int m_a;
virtual int getA() {return m_a;}
virtual int virt() = 0;
};
class B : virtual public A
{
public:
B() : A(1) {}
};
class C : virtual public A
{
public:
C() : A(2) {}
virtual int virt() {return 42;}
};
class D : public B,
public C
{
public:
D() : A(3) {}
};
void useB(B* b)
{
std::cout << "useB:" << b->getA() << std::endl;
}
void useC(C* c)
{
std::cout << "useC:" << c->getA() << std::endl;
std::cout << "useC-virt:" << c->virt() << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
D* d = new D();
useB(d);
useC(d);
return 0;
}
Output:
useB:3
useC:3
useC-virt:42
Note: The constructors from C and B don't get a say in setting m_a, which is controller by the D() constructor initialisation list.
EDIT:
Applying virtual to your code:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
protected:
virtual std::string getDateTime() = 0;
virtual void Write(std::string data, bool addDate) = 0;
virtual bool CheckFile() = 0;
virtual bool OpenFile(std::string path) = 0;
virtual void CloseFile() = 0;
};
class B
: virtual public A
{
public:
virtual std::string ToString() { return ""; };
virtual void Write(std::string data) { };
};
class C
: virtual public A
{
protected:
std::string getDateTime()
{
return "TODAY";
};
void Write(std::string data, bool addDate)
{
std::cout << "C Write" << std::endl;
};
bool CheckFile()
{
std::cout << "C CheckFile" << std::endl;
return true;
};
bool OpenFile(std::string path)
{
std::cout << "C OpenFile" << std::endl;
return true;
};
void CloseFile()
{
std::cout << "C CloseFile" << std::endl;
};
};
class D
: public B,
public C
{
public:
std::string ToString()
{
return "D tostring";
};
void Write(std::string data)
{
std::cout << "D Write" << std::endl;
};
};
int main(int ac, char *av[])
{
D b;
std::cout << b.ToString() << std::endl;
b.Write("");
return 0;
}
BaseClassA has 5 pure virtual functions. A class with even one pure virtual function is an "Abstract class". The purpose of pure virtual functions (in short) is to disallow creation of objects of the abstract class.
In order to instantiate BaseClassB, it needs to have definitions of all 5 functions which you declared pure virtual in BaseClassA. (In absence of these definitions, BaseClassB also becomes Abstract and hence you cannot create objects from it).
BasicClassB only derives from BaseClassA which is an abstract class since those methods :
virtual std::string getDateTime() = 0;
virtual void Write(std::string data, bool addDate) = 0;
virtual bool CheckFile() = 0;
virtual bool OpenFile(std::string path) = 0;
virtual void CloseFile() = 0;
Are pure virtual.
The error message is pretty clear: to be able to instantiate a BasicClassB you must provide an implementation for the forementioned methods.
Also, note that your definition of Write in BasicClassB:
virtual void Write(std::string data) { };
Differs from the one in BaseClassA:
virtual void Write(std::string data, bool addDate) = 0;
So this method still needs to be implemented for BasicClassB to become instantiable.
The fact that you add "=0" to your functions means that they are purely virtual, and must be implemented in child classes. Which is obviously not what you want. If you drop the "=0" from the functions that have an implementation in the base class, it should be working as intended.