I'm an C++ beginner, please help me.
I can't use template class as the constructor' s parameter.
xcode shows 'No matching constructor for initialization of 'Work'' error.
The whole source code below, any one can fix this?
#include <iostream>
class Base {
public:
virtual void hello_world() const {
printf("Base::hello_world()\n");
};
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
void hello_world() const {
printf("Derived::hello_world()\n");
};
};
template<class T>
class Templ {
public:
Templ(const T &t) : _value(t) {}
const T& getValue() const{
return _value;
}
private:
const T &_value;
};
class Work {
public:
Work(const Templ<Base*> &base) : mBase(base) {}
void working() {
mBase.getValue()->hello_world();
}
private:
const Templ<Base*> &mBase;
};
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
Templ<Base*> base(new Base());
//OK
Work w_base(base);
Templ<Derived*> derived(new Derived());
//error: No matching constructor for initialization of 'Work'
Work w_derived(derived);
return 0;
}
Work w_derived(derived); is never going to work as Work expects a Templ<Base*>. A Templ<Base*> and a Templ<Derived*> are two different, distinct types. Just a like a std::vector<int> is not the same as a std::vector<std::complex>.
What you can do though is create a Templ<Base*> from a pointer to a Dervied and then create a Work with that. Something like
Templ<Base*> derived(new Derived());
Work w_derived(derived);
Live Example
Also as pointed out in the comments since you are using polymorphism you need to have a virtual destructor in the base class. If the destructor is not virtual then only the base class destructor will run and you will your object will not be properly destructed.
In C++, this would look like this
struct Base
{
virtual ~Base() {} // enable descruction of base through pointer to Base
virtual void hello_world() const
{ std::cout<<"Base::hello_world()\n"; }
};
struct Derived : Base
{
void hello_world() const override
{ std::cout<<"Derived::hello_world()\n"; }
};
struct work
{
work(const Base*p)
: ptr(p) {}
void working() const
{ ptr->hello_world(); }
private:
std::unique_ptr<const Base> ptr;
};
int main()
{
Work w_base(new Base);
Work w_derived(new Derived);
w_base.working();
w_derived.working();
}
Note the following
the virtual destructor of Base ensures that a derived class is properly destructed from a pointer to Base, so that std::unique_ptr<> works correctly.
the override keyword ensures that we actually implement a virtual method.
the usage of std::unique_ptr<> avoids the Templ class. Morever, its destructor will automatically and correctly destroy the pointed-to object, avoiding the memory leak of your code.
return 0 is not required for int main(), but automatically generated.
Related
Consider the following code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
/// Header-file
class Base {
public:
virtual void do_something() const =0;
int GetAttrib () const {return constattribute_;};
static const int constattribute_;
};
typedef Base* Derived_Ptr; //<< adress derived classes by their base-class ptr; so no templates for Base
class DerivedA : public Base {
// static const int constattribute_; //<< change this static attribute for all DerivedA class instances and their derivatives
void do_something() const {};
};
class DerivedB : public Base {
// static const int constattribute_; //<< change this static attribute for all DerivedB class instances and their derivatives
void do_something() const {};
};
/// CC-file
using namespace std;
const int Base::constattribute_(0);
const int DerivedA::constattribute_(1); //<<error: no such variable 'constattribute' in class DerivedA
const int DerivedB::constattribute_(2); //<<error: no such variable 'constattribute' in class DerivedB
int main(void) {
Derived_Ptr derivedA = new DerivedA();
Derived_Ptr derivedB = new DerivedB();
cout << derivedA->GetAttrib() << derivedB->GetAttrib() <<endl;
return 0;
};
The intend being that i have some abstract interface (Base) which defines also a variable, which should be present for all derived classes, and is retrievable. All flavours of subclasses should be forced to/able to redefine their specific value for this variable, at best during class declaration (the values are known at the time the class is declared after all).
I want to achieve code, not altering the main()-program so that the output is '12' and not as of now (uncommenting current lines in the code) '00' (Doing so shadows the fields from base class).
I tried to look into the matter, and there are different paths for solutions, many of which however go contrary to my intuition:
1. Some follow the CRTP pattern, which is however impossible if I want to address my subclasses by their base-ptr in main.
2. Other solutions require to virtualize the 'GetAttrib()' function for every derived instance., which is cumbersome, and action of modifying the attribute is masked within a function definition.
3. A third possibility is to remove the static pattern and have the 'constattribute_' field as a regular member, which however forces me to drag it through all constructors as a parameter.
I am quite sure that there must be some smarter way to do this. Any hints are appreciated.
Using CRTP may get you what you want, assuming you don't have to access GetAttr() through Base* and can leave without constattribute_ in Base itself. Just follow the rule that every programming problem can be solved by entering another level of indirection, which I did below:
class Base {
public:
virtual void do_something() const = 0;
virtual ~Base() // should define it as you are using Base*
{
}
};
typedef Base* Derived_Ptr;
template<class T>
class BaseConstAttr : public Base
{
public:
int GetAttrib () const
{
return(constattribute_);
};
static const int constattribute_;
};
class DerivedA : public BaseConstAttr<DerivedA>
{
public:
void do_something() const
{
};
};
class DerivedB : public BaseConstAttr<DerivedB>
{
public:
void do_something() const
{
};
};
template<> const int BaseConstAttr<DerivedA>::constattribute_(1);
template<> const int BaseConstAttr<DerivedB>::constattribute_(2);
If you need GettAttr from top to bottom of the inheritance tree you can modify the above code a bit, but this will cost you making GetAttr virtual (but still one implementation only):
class Base {
public:
virtual void do_something() const = 0;
virtual int GetAttrib () const = 0;
virtual ~Base() // should define it as you are using Base*
{
}
};
typedef Base* Derived_Ptr;
template<class T>
class BaseConstAttr : public Base
{
public:
int GetAttrib () const
{
return(constattribute_);
};
static const int constattribute_;
};
class DerivedA : public BaseConstAttr<DerivedA>
{
public:
void do_something() const
{
};
};
class DerivedB : public BaseConstAttr<DerivedB>
{
public:
void do_something() const
{
};
};
template<> const int BaseConstAttr<DerivedA>::constattribute_(1);
template<> const int BaseConstAttr<DerivedB>::constattribute_(2);
Please note that I don't know how well (or bad) it will behave with deep inheritance tree (ie. when inheriting from DerivedA and/or DerivedB). In this case I would probably remove BaseConstAttr from inheritance tree right below Base and would try to inject it between most derived class and its predecessor or use multiple inheritance.
What you are requesting requires virtual dispatch somewhere, because you don't know the type of the object you are dealing with until runtime. The purpose of virtual dispatch is to solve exactly the problem you are facing.
The simplest solution is what you have given as number 2: make GetAttrib() virtual, and implement it on each derived class where you introduce a shadowing constattribute_.
static variable in base class is single instance hence it will be reflected same in derived class.
You can make same static member variable in derived class with specific different value you want. Now make getter member function of static variable in Base class as virtual and overload it in derived class which returns is static instance value.
I have update your code to work it, please check ..
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Base {
public:
static const int constattribute_;
virtual void do_something() const =0;
virtual int GetAttrib () const {return constattribute_;};
};
typedef Base* Derived_Ptr; //<< adress derived classes by their base-class ptr; so no templates for Base
class DerivedA : public Base {
static const int constattribute_; //<< change this static attribute for all DerivedA class instances and their derivatives
void do_something() const {};
int GetAttrib () const {return constattribute_;};
};
class DerivedB : public Base {
static const int constattribute_; //<< change this static attribute for all DerivedB class instances and their derivatives
void do_something() const {};
int GetAttrib () const {return constattribute_;};
};
const int Base::constattribute_(0);
const int DerivedA::constattribute_(1); //<<error: no such variable 'constattribute' in class DerivedA
const int DerivedB::constattribute_(2); //<<error: no such variable 'constattribute' in class DerivedB
int main(void) {
Derived_Ptr derivedA = new DerivedA();
Derived_Ptr derivedB = new DerivedB();
cout << derivedA->GetAttrib() << derivedB->GetAttrib() <<endl;
return 0;
};
You should get desired output.
Note : Remember all member variables and func in derived class are private.
I have been experimenting with abstract types.
The code below gives me a desired effect.
class base{
public:
virtual void do_stuff() = 0;
};
class derived: public base{
public:
void do_stuff(){/*stuff*/}
};
class manager{
vector<shared_ptr<base>> ptrs;
public:
void add(base* ptr){
ptrs.emplace_back(ptr);
}
};
manager foo;
foo.add(new derived());
Fine and dandy, but it's awkward because the user is not only dealing with pointers, but has to use new without ever calling delete. My question is if there's a way I can implement this where the user of manager doesn't ever have to deal with pointers or new.
foo.add(derived()); //example
My attempts to implement this end up as:
class manager{
vector<shared_ptr<base>> ptrs;
public:
void add(base& ref){
ptrs.emplace_back(&ref);
}
};
But, the compiler says no known conversion from 'derived' to 'base&'. I have no idea how to make a reference to base compatible with a reference to derived. How do I get around this?
Pass unique_ptr
Your add function takes ownership of this object. A safe way of passing ownership is to pass unique_ptr.
Using a unique_ptr is fairly flexible because you can construct a shared_ptr from a unique_ptr or if you change your mind in the future you can store the unique_ptr directly.
class manager{
vector<shared_ptr<base>> ptrs;
public:
void add(std::unique_ptr<base> ptr){
ptrs.emplace_back(std::move(ptr));
}
};
manager foo;
foo.add(std::make_unique<derived>());
Using a temporary std::unique_ptr you avoid the owning raw pointer that is not exception safe. By using make_unique you can avoid writing new.
Live demo.
Pass a Factory
Another option if the caller really doesn't want to have to deal with any kind of pointer is to pass some sort of Factory that the add function uses to construct the object. The Factory could simply be a static create function on the derived class itself:
using Factory = std::function<std::unique_ptr<base>()>;
class manager{
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<base>> ptrs;
public:
void addUsing(const Factory& factory){
ptrs.emplace_back(factory());
}
};
class derived : public base {
public:
...
static std::unique_ptr<derived> create() {
return std::make_unique<derived>();
}
};
manager foo;
foo.addUsing(derived::create);
Live demo.
You can let your add() function be passed the arguments to be used in the construction of type T, where T is specified as the type of a subclass.
template <typename T, typename... TArgs>
void add(TArgs&&... args)
{
ptrs.emplace_back(std::make_shared<T>(std::forward<TArgs>(args)...));
}
Which can then be called as follows:
bm.add<derived_a>( "hello" ); // derived_a constructor takes a string
bm.add<derived_b>( 42 ); // derived_b constructor takes an int
Full example
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
class base
{
public:
virtual void f() = 0;
};
class derived_a : public base
{
public:
derived_a( std::string const& s ) : s_{ s } {}
void f() override { std::cout << "derived_a::string = " << s_ << '\n'; }
private:
std::string s_;
};
class derived_b : public base
{
public:
derived_b( int i ) : i_{ i } {}
void f() override { std::cout << "derived_b::int = " << i_ << '\n'; }
private:
int i_;
};
class base_manager
{
public:
template <typename T, typename... TArgs>
void add( TArgs&&... args )
{
ptrs.emplace_back( std::make_shared<T>( std::forward<TArgs>( args )... ) );
}
void print() { for ( auto& d : ptrs ) d->f(); }
private:
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<base>> ptrs;
};
int main()
{
base_manager bm;
bm.add<derived_a>( "hello" );
bm.add<derived_b>( 42 );
bm.print();
}
You can't pass a temporary (an r-value) to a non-const reference. Also you try to take the address of that temporary object, which will in the end produce a dangling pointer and undefined behavior.
Assuming you want to pass an object of unknown runtime type to the manager:
One thing you can do is using some sort of polymorphic copy mechanism (like a virtual clone method) and make an internal copy of the object on the heap (it has to be polymorphic, to avoid object slicing).
class base {
public:
virtual void do_stuff() = 0;
virtual shared_ptr<base> clone() const = 0;
virtual ~base()=default;
};
class derived : public base {
int data;
public:
derived() :data(0) {};
derived(const derived& other) :data(other.data)
{};
virtual shared_ptr<base> clone() const override {
return make_shared<derived>(*this);
};
void do_stuff() {/*stuff*/ }
};
class manager {
vector<shared_ptr<base>> ptrs;
public:
void add(const base& obj) {
ptrs.emplace_back(obj.clone());
}
};
int main() {
manager foo;
foo.add(derived());
}
without the clone, it would look something like this:
void add(const base& obj) {
if (typeid(obj)== typeid(derived) ){
ptrs.emplace_back(make_shared<derived>(static_cast<const derived&>(obj)));
}
else if (typeid(obj) == typeid(derived2)) {
...
}
Your original question seems to be concerned over the fact that the user/caller creates a pointer and hands it off and never deletes it. My example below, simply makes it explicit to the user that he can hand it off and forget about it. In otherwords, require the user to pass a shared_ptr...
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class base{
public:
virtual void do_stuff() = 0;
};
class derived : public base{
public:
void do_stuff(){/*stuff*/ }
};
class manager{
vector<shared_ptr<base>> ptrs;
public:
void add(shared_ptr<base> ptr){
ptrs.emplace_back(ptr);
}
};
int main()
{
manager foo;
shared_ptr<derived> bp(new derived()); //require the user supply a smart pointer
foo.add(bp);
return 0;
}
This is simpler than the other posts, and may not be as forward thinking, but it does not require the derived class to implement additional base members. In many cases, it is may be enough.
Consider the following code:
class Base
{
public:
virtual void* allocate(){ return nullptr; }
};
template <class T> class BaseTemplate : public Base
{
public:
void* allocate() override { return new T(); }
};
class IntSpecialization : public BaseTemplate<int>
{
};
Base GetSpecialization(const int&){ return IntSpecialization(); }
The goal is to be able to use template to implement specializations, but still allow users to work using the base class interface, such as:
int a;
auto s = GetSpecialization(a);
auto p = s.allocate();
The above code does not work; s.allocate() always return nullptr for obvious reasons.
I absolutely need the GetSpecialization function to return the Base non-template class, so how do I go about this?
The Base class virtual method cannot be pure, because otherwise it becomes abstract and it will fail the compilation at GetSpecialization.
What is the best approach to solve this pattern? Using C++11?
Thanks!
Base GetSpecialization(const int&){ return IntSpecialization(); }
You're slicing the IntSpecialization object above. To make your code work, GetSpecialization must return a Base *, or a Base&. For instance, the following will work as you intended it to:
std::unique_ptr<Base> GetSpecialization(const int&)
{
return std::unique_ptr<Base>(new IntSpecialization());
}
Live demo
For the above code to work, you'll need to add a virtual destructor to Base.
class Base
{
public:
virtual void* allocate(){ return nullptr; }
virtual ~Base() = default;
};
Otherwise, when the unique_ptr goes out of scope it'll call delete ptr;, where the type of ptr is Base *, and polymorphic deletion of a derived class object through a base class pointer is undefined behavior unless the base class destructor is virtual.
Just make Base have pointer to BaseTemplate:
class BaseInterface {
public:
virtual void* allocate() = 0;
}
class Base
{
std::unique_ptr<BaseInterface> interface;
public:
Base( BaseInterface *i ) : interface( i ) {}
void* allocate(){ return interface->allocate(); }
};
template <class T> class BaseTemplate : public BaseInterface
{
public:
void* allocate() override { return new T(); }
};
class IntSpecialization : public BaseTemplate<int>
{
};
Base GetSpecialization(const int&){ return Base( new IntSpecialization ); }
Less verbose solution is to use std::function and lambda
class Base
{
public:
typedef std::function<void *()> creator;
Base( const creator &c ) : cr( c ) {}
void *allocate() { return cr(); }
private:
creator cr;
};
template<class T>
Base GetSpecialization( const T & ) { return Base( []() { return new T; } ); }
I want to make a class with a member function that takes a reference to another class, where both classes are derived from abstract classes. I get a compiler error that the class Container is abstract because it doesn't implement addElem().
class Ielem
{
public:
virtual void action() = 0;
};
class Elem: public Ielem
{
public:
void action() {};
void extra() {};
};
class Icontainer
{
public:
virtual void addElem(Ielem &elem) = 0;
};
class Container: public Icontainer
{
public:
void addElem(Elem &elem) { elem.extra(); };
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
Elem e;
Container c;
c.addElem(e);
return 0;
}
It seems like this ought to work, because any reference to an Elem is also a reference to an Ielem. It compiles if I make Container::addElem take a reference to an Ielem. But then Container::addElem() can't call Elem::extra() unless I use dynamic_cast, which isn't available on the embedded compiler I'm using, or a regular cast, which isn't type safe.
Suggestions?
It's the wrong way round: the base class Icontainer specifies that addElem can take any Ielem object as an argument, but in your derived class you accept only Elem. This is a "narrower" type, so the contract "I'll accept any Ielem you throw at me" specified in the base class is violated.
I think templates would be the solution here. You don't even need the base classes anymore. Something like this:
class Elem
{
public:
void action() {};
void extra() {};
};
template<typename ElemType>
class Container
{
public:
void addElem(ElemType &elem) { elem.extra(); };
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
Elem e;
Container<Elem> c;
c.addElem(e);
return 0;
}
As a bonus, you can now use Container with any type that has an extra() function, and it will just work.
The problem is simply that your virtual method doesn't have the same signature as the concrete method which is intended to overload it; so the compiler sees it as a different function entirely and complains because you haven't implemented void addElem(Ielem &elem). This is one solution, which you probably don't want--
class Icontainer
{
public:
virtual void addElem(Elem &elem) = 0; //Ielem -> Elem
};
It depends on all your other constraints but I think what I would do--and what seems to conform to general design guidelines, e.g. Sutter & Alexandreascu, would be to create an intermediate abstract class with the full interface--
class Melem: public Ielem
{
public:
// void action() {}; //Already have this form Ielem
void extra() = 0;
};
and then
class Icontainer
{
public:
virtual void addElem(Melem &elem) = 0;
};
class Container: public Icontainer
{
public:
void addElem(Melem &elem) { elem.extra(); };
//*Now* we're implementing Icontainer::addElem
};
Is there anyway to have a sort of virtual static member in C++?
For example:
class BaseClass {
public:
BaseClass(const string& name) : _name(name) {}
string GetName() const { return _name; }
virtual void UseClass() = 0;
private:
const string _name;
};
class DerivedClass : public BaseClass {
public:
DerivedClass() : BaseClass("DerivedClass") {}
virtual void UseClass() { /* do something */ }
};
I know this example is trivial, but if I have a vector of complex data that is going to be always the same for all derived class but is needed to be accessed from base class methods?
class BaseClass {
public:
BaseClass() {}
virtual string GetName() const = 0;
virtual void UseClass() = 0;
};
class DerivedClass : public BaseClass {
public:
DerivedClass() {}
virtual string GetName() const { return _name; }
virtual void UseClass() { /* do something */ }
private:
static const string _name;
};
string DerivedClass::_name = "DerivedClass";
This solution does not satify me because I need reimplement the member _name and its accessor GetName() in every class. In my case I have several members that follows _name behavior and tenths of derived classes.
Any idea?
Here is one solution:
struct BaseData
{
const string my_word;
const int my_number;
};
class Base
{
public:
Base(const BaseData* apBaseData)
{
mpBaseData = apBaseData;
}
const string getMyWord()
{
return mpBaseData->my_word;
}
int getMyNumber()
{
return mpBaseData->my_number;
}
private:
const BaseData* mpBaseData;
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
Derived() : Base(&sBaseData)
{
}
private:
static BaseData sBaseData;
}
BaseData Derived::BaseData = { "Foo", 42 };
It seems like the answer is in the question - the method you suggested seems to be the right direction to go, except that if you have a big number of those shared members you might want to gather them into a struct or class and past that as the argument to the constructor of the base class.
If you insist on having the "shared" members implemented as static members of the derived class, you might be able to auto-generate the code of the derived classes. XSLT is a great tool for auto-generating simple classes.
In general, the example doesn't show a need for "virtual static" members, because for purposes like these you don't actually need inheritance - instead you should use the base class and have it accept the appropriate values in the constructor - maybe creating a single instance of the arguments for each "sub-type" and passing a pointer to it to avoid duplication of the shared data. Another similar approach is to use templates and pass as the template argument a class that provides all the relevant values (this is commonly referred to as the "Policy" pattern).
To conclude - for the purpose of the original example, there is no need for such "virtual static" members. If you still think they are needed for the code you are writing, please try to elaborate and add more context.
Example of what I described above:
class BaseClass {
public:
BaseClass(const Descriptor& desc) : _desc(desc) {}
string GetName() const { return _desc.name; }
int GetId() const { return _desc.Id; }
X GetX() connst { return _desc.X; }
virtual void UseClass() = 0;
private:
const Descriptor _desc;
};
class DerivedClass : public BaseClass {
public:
DerivedClass() : BaseClass(Descriptor("abc", 1,...)) {}
virtual void UseClass() { /* do something */ }
};
class DerDerClass : public BaseClass {
public:
DerivedClass() : BaseClass("Wowzer", 843,...) {}
virtual void UseClass() { /* do something */ }
};
I'd like to elaborate on this solution, and maybe give a solution to the de-initialization problem:
With a small change, you can implement the design described above without necessarily create a new instance of the "descriptor" for each instance of a derived class.
You can create a singleton object, DescriptorMap, that will hold the single instance of each descriptor, and use it when constructing the derived objects like so:
enum InstanceType {
Yellow,
Big,
BananaHammoc
}
class DescriptorsMap{
public:
static Descriptor* GetDescriptor(InstanceType type) {
if ( _instance.Get() == null) {
_instance.reset(new DescriptorsMap());
}
return _instance.Get()-> _descriptors[type];
}
private:
DescriptorsMap() {
descriptors[Yellow] = new Descriptor("Yellow", 42, ...);
descriptors[Big] = new Descriptor("InJapan", 17, ...)
...
}
~DescriptorsMap() {
/*Delete all the descriptors from the map*/
}
static autoptr<DescriptorsMap> _instance;
map<InstanceType, Descriptor*> _descriptors;
}
Now we can do this:
class DerivedClass : public BaseClass {
public:
DerivedClass() : BaseClass(DescriptorsMap.GetDescriptor(InstanceType.BananaHammoc)) {}
virtual void UseClass() { /* do something */ }
};
class DerDerClass : public BaseClass {
public:
DerivedClass() : BaseClass(DescriptorsMap.GetDescriptor(InstanceType.Yellow)) {}
virtual void UseClass() { /* do something */ }
};
At the end of execution, when the C runtime performs uninitializations, it also calls the destructor of static objects, including our autoptr, which in deletes our instance of the DescriptorsMap.
So now we have a single instance of each descriptor that is also being deleted at the end of execution.
Note that if the only purpose of the derived class is to supply the relevant "descriptor" data (i.e. as opposed to implementing virtual functions) then you should make do with making the base class non-abstract, and just creating an instance with the appropriate descriptor each time.
I agree with Hershi's suggestion to use a template as the "base class". From what you're describing, it sounds more like a use for templates rather then subclassing.
You could create a template as follows ( have not tried to compile this ):
template <typename T>
class Object
{
public:
Object( const T& newObject ) : yourObject(newObject) {} ;
T GetObject() const { return yourObject } ;
void SetObject( const T& newObject ) { yourObject = newObject } ;
protected:
const T yourObject ;
} ;
class SomeClassOne
{
public:
SomeClassOne( const std::vector& someData )
{
yourData.SetObject( someData ) ;
}
private:
Object<std::vector<int>> yourData ;
} ;
This will let you use the template class methods to modify the data as needed from within your custom classes that use the data and share the various aspects of the template class.
If you're intent on using inheritance, then you might have to resort to the "joys" of using a void* pointer in your BaseClass and dealing with casting, etc.
However, based on your explanation, it seems like you need templates and not inheritance.
#Hershi: the problem with that approach is that each instance of each derived class has a copy of the data, which may be expensive in some way.
Perhaps you could try something like this (I'm spit-balling without a compiling example, but the idea should be clear).
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
struct DerivedData
{
DerivedData(const string & word, const int number) :
my_word(word), my_number(number) {}
const string my_word;
const int my_number;
};
class Base {
public:
Base() : m_data(0) {}
string getWord() const { return m_data->my_word; }
int getNumber() const { return m_data->my_number; }
protected:
DerivedData * m_data;
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
Derived() : Base() {
if(Derived::s_data == 0) {
Derived::s_data = new DerivedData("abc", 1);
}
m_data = s_data;
}
private:
static DerivedData * s_data;
};
DerivedData * Derived::s_data = 0;
int main()
{
Base * p_b = new Derived();
cout getWord() << endl;
}
Regarding the follow-up question on deleting the static object: the only solution that comes to mind is to use a smart pointer, something like the Boost shared pointer.
It sounds as if you're trying to avoid having to duplicate the code at the leaf classes, so why not just derive an intermediate base class from the base class. this intermediate class can hold the static data, and have all your leaf classes derive from the intermediate base class. This presupposes that one static piece of data held over all the derived classes is desired, which seems so from your example.