Suppose we have two classes, one derived from other and it contains only one virtual non-pure method like this:
class Base
{
public:
virtual void method()
{
cout << "method() called from Base" << endl;
}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void method()
{
cout << "method() called from Derived" << endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Base *instance1 = new Derived();
instance1->method();
Derived derived;
derived.method();
}
Why, if we do not specify explicitly "public" access modifier in Derived class (so, compiler assumes that it's private) it wouldn't compile? Why instantiation way(via pointer and via regular variable) does affect to the visibility scope? Is there any rationale regarding this behavior?
Many thanks!
If you don't write public: then it's as if you've written private:. If you're asking why the language doesn't automatically switch to public: for Derived::method() (because it overrides Base::method() which is already public)… well, it could! This would be possible.
However, it would also be extremely confusing and misleading when reading the code. As a programmer I much prefer that my class definition isn't fundamentally altered behind my back like that.
The compiler throws out an error (as you've discovered) allowing me to make the change myself as I deem appropriate (whether that's making Derived::method() public, or Base::method() private!), which in my opinion is by far the best outcome.
If instead you're asking why a difference in visibility even matters at all, then that seems fairly obvious, does it not? If the user were calling a function through the Base class interface, in which method() is public, and this ended up automatically invoking a private function in a derived class, that violates the contract of the derived class. And because it's only the names that are protected by these visibility rules, the language adds an extra check for overridden methods to extend that protection as much as possible in the case of virtual function dispatch.
Something very similar is given as an example in the standard where the rules for these things are specified [class.access.virt]:
1 The access rules (Clause 11) for a virtual function are determined
by its declaration and are not affected by the rules for a function
that later overrides it.
[ Example:
class B {
public: virtual int f();
};
class D : public B
{
private: int f();
};
void f()
{
D d;
B* pb = &d;
D* pd = &d;
pb->f(); // OK: B::f() is public, // D::f() is invoked
pd->f(); // error: D::f() is private
}
— end example ]
2 Access is
checked at the call point using the type of the expression used to
denote the object for which the member function is called (B* in the
example above). The access of the member function in the class in
which it was defined (D in the example above) is in general not known.
The above answer both your questions:
Why does it not compile - as per rule 2 above access is checked using the type of the expression (i.e. the static not dynamic type)
What is the rationale - again as described above it is generally not known what the dynamic type is. To demonstrate, consider this: You can link new derived classes to an existing code defining a base class without recompiling this code: then clearly it would have no chance of determining the access controls of the derived (which didn't even exist when it was compiled).
Related
I have a Base class pointer pointing to derived class object. The method foo() is public in base class but private in derived class. Base class foo() is virtual. So when i call foo() from Base class pointer, Vptr Table has the address of derived class foo(), BUT its private in Derived class ...so how is it getting called.??
I understand Run time polymorphism and i also understand that the Access specifiers work for compile time and Virtual concept works at run time. So there shall be No Compiler error.
My question is : Is this is a loop hole through which we can call private methods of Derived class ? or Its expected to behave this way.
Any good Explanation for this behavior.
Thanks a lot in advance.
CODE :
class A
{
public:
virtual void foo()
{
std::cout << "In A";
}
};
class B:public A
{
private:
void foo()
{
std::cout << "In B ??? Its Private Method :-( ";
}
};
int main()
{
A* ptr = new B();
ptr->foo();
return 0;
}
It's private method, but since it's virtual - it can be called.
n3690 11.5/1
The access rules (Clause 11) for a virtual function are determined by its declaration and are not affected by
the rules for a function that later overrides it.
Why this? Since
n3690 11.5/2
Access is checked at the call point using the type of the expression used to denote the object for which the
member function is called (B* in the example above). The access of the member function in the class in
which it was defined (D in the example above) is in general not known.
Access level is a compile-time concept. The runtime doesn't know if a method was declared private or public. Those are there for your convenience.
This is actually a good coding standard - a virtual method should be ideally public in the base class and private or protected in derived classes. This will force the caller to use the interfaces rather than the actual types (of course, this isn't always practical, but a good thing to take into account).
The concrete type is abstracted away in your case, as it should be. The base method is declared public and you're calling it through a pointer to a base, so it's allowed.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
C++: overriding public\private inheritance
class base {
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
};
class derived : public base {
private: // <-- Note this is private
virtual void doSomething()
{ cout << "Derived fn" << endl; }
};
Now if I do the following:
base *b = new derived;
b->doSomething(); // Calls the derived class function even though that is private
Question:
It's able to call the derived class function even though it is private. How is this possible?
Now if I change the inheritance access specifier from public to protected/private, I get a compilation error:
'type cast' : conversion from 'derived *' to 'base *' exists, but is inaccessible
Note: I am aware of the concepts of the inheritance access specifiers. So in the second case as it's derived private/protected, it's inaccessible. But I wonder about the answer to first question. Any input will be highly appreciated.
Access control is implemented at compile time, not run-time, while polymorphism (including the use of virtual functions) is a run-time feature.
In the first case the access check is done (as it is always done) on the static type that the call is made through. The static type of *b is base, and in that case doSomething() is public.
C++03 11.6 "Access to virtual functions" says:
The access rules (clause 11) for a virtual function are determined by
its declaration and are not affected by the rules for a function that
later overrides it. [Example:
class B {
public:
virtual int f();
};
class D : public B {
private:
int f();
};
void f()
{
D d;
B* pb = &d;
D* pd = &d;
pb->f(); //OK:B::f()is public,
// D::f() is invoked
pd->f(); //error:D::f()is private
}
—end example]
Access is checked at the call point using the type of the expression used to denote the object for which the member function is called (B* in the example above). The access of the member function in the class in which it was defined (D in the example above) is in general not known.
Keep in mind especially that "the access of the member function in the class in which it was defined (D in the example above) is in general not known". In general, at the point in your example where b->doSomething(); is called, the compiler may have no knowledge at all about derived (or child), much less whether or not the access to derived::doSomething() is private.
Private functions are meant to be hidden from the outside world and from the derived classes. Although you are overriding the access specifier of the parent's DoSomething and making it private, you are instantiating a base class; so in the first case, you can call base's DoSomething as it is public. This scenario can be used if you want to stop people deriving from your derived class.
In the second case, the private access specifier causes the base's members not to be exposed to the users of the derived class, which effectively makes the derived class useless.
I have a Base class pointer pointing to derived class object. The method foo() is public in base class but private in derived class. Base class foo() is virtual. So when i call foo() from Base class pointer, Vptr Table has the address of derived class foo(), BUT its private in Derived class ...so how is it getting called.??
I understand Run time polymorphism and i also understand that the Access specifiers work for compile time and Virtual concept works at run time. So there shall be No Compiler error.
My question is : Is this is a loop hole through which we can call private methods of Derived class ? or Its expected to behave this way.
Any good Explanation for this behavior.
Thanks a lot in advance.
CODE :
class A
{
public:
virtual void foo()
{
std::cout << "In A";
}
};
class B:public A
{
private:
void foo()
{
std::cout << "In B ??? Its Private Method :-( ";
}
};
int main()
{
A* ptr = new B();
ptr->foo();
return 0;
}
It's private method, but since it's virtual - it can be called.
n3690 11.5/1
The access rules (Clause 11) for a virtual function are determined by its declaration and are not affected by
the rules for a function that later overrides it.
Why this? Since
n3690 11.5/2
Access is checked at the call point using the type of the expression used to denote the object for which the
member function is called (B* in the example above). The access of the member function in the class in
which it was defined (D in the example above) is in general not known.
Access level is a compile-time concept. The runtime doesn't know if a method was declared private or public. Those are there for your convenience.
This is actually a good coding standard - a virtual method should be ideally public in the base class and private or protected in derived classes. This will force the caller to use the interfaces rather than the actual types (of course, this isn't always practical, but a good thing to take into account).
The concrete type is abstracted away in your case, as it should be. The base method is declared public and you're calling it through a pointer to a base, so it's allowed.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
C++: overriding public\private inheritance
class base {
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
};
class derived : public base {
private: // <-- Note this is private
virtual void doSomething()
{ cout << "Derived fn" << endl; }
};
Now if I do the following:
base *b = new derived;
b->doSomething(); // Calls the derived class function even though that is private
Question:
It's able to call the derived class function even though it is private. How is this possible?
Now if I change the inheritance access specifier from public to protected/private, I get a compilation error:
'type cast' : conversion from 'derived *' to 'base *' exists, but is inaccessible
Note: I am aware of the concepts of the inheritance access specifiers. So in the second case as it's derived private/protected, it's inaccessible. But I wonder about the answer to first question. Any input will be highly appreciated.
Access control is implemented at compile time, not run-time, while polymorphism (including the use of virtual functions) is a run-time feature.
In the first case the access check is done (as it is always done) on the static type that the call is made through. The static type of *b is base, and in that case doSomething() is public.
C++03 11.6 "Access to virtual functions" says:
The access rules (clause 11) for a virtual function are determined by
its declaration and are not affected by the rules for a function that
later overrides it. [Example:
class B {
public:
virtual int f();
};
class D : public B {
private:
int f();
};
void f()
{
D d;
B* pb = &d;
D* pd = &d;
pb->f(); //OK:B::f()is public,
// D::f() is invoked
pd->f(); //error:D::f()is private
}
—end example]
Access is checked at the call point using the type of the expression used to denote the object for which the member function is called (B* in the example above). The access of the member function in the class in which it was defined (D in the example above) is in general not known.
Keep in mind especially that "the access of the member function in the class in which it was defined (D in the example above) is in general not known". In general, at the point in your example where b->doSomething(); is called, the compiler may have no knowledge at all about derived (or child), much less whether or not the access to derived::doSomething() is private.
Private functions are meant to be hidden from the outside world and from the derived classes. Although you are overriding the access specifier of the parent's DoSomething and making it private, you are instantiating a base class; so in the first case, you can call base's DoSomething as it is public. This scenario can be used if you want to stop people deriving from your derived class.
In the second case, the private access specifier causes the base's members not to be exposed to the users of the derived class, which effectively makes the derived class useless.
I recently came across this article on IBM site. Below is the sample code
#include "iostream"
class B {
public:
virtual void f()
{
std::cout<<"\n In class B";
}
};
class D : public B {
private:
int i;
void f()
{
std::cout<<"\n In class D i = "<<i;
}
public:
D(int i_num):i(i_num)
{}
};
int main() {
D dobj(10);
B* bptr = &dobj;
D* dptr = &dobj;
// valid, virtual B::f() is public,
// D::f() is called
bptr->f();
// error, D::f() is private
//dptr->f();
}
We are now able to call private function of D.I wanted to know doesn't this break C++ encapsulation ?
P.S. : Please go to Virtual function access section in Virtual function. I do not know why I am not getting exact link when I do paste.
The call bptr->f() is evaluated at run time depending on the type of objected pointed by bptr. At compile time the compile sees the bptr->f() call as call to B::f() and since B::f() is public the compiler doesn't report only error. It is only at runtime that actual function call D::f() is evaluated.
This doesn't break the Encapsulation principle this is a feature of C++ called Run-time Polymorphism or Dynamic Polymorphism
You cannot directly call dptr->f() because D::f() is declared under Private Access specifier and You cannot access privately declared members from outside the class.
Access-specifiers are compile-time construct, and so, the compiler detects any violation of access-rules at compile-time (obviously) based on the static type of the object (or pointer). Such violation cannot be detected at runtime.
So bptr->f() works, because the compiler sees that the static type of bptr is B which has a public function f() defined, so the expression bptr->f() passes the compiler's test. Hence it works.
But dptr->f() doesn't work, since the static type of dptr is D which has a private function f(), hence the code wouldn't even compile!
Now whether it breaks encapsulation or not, is a very subjective question and will receive subjective answers. It entirely depends on how one defines it and the arguments directly flows from it. There is no one universal definition. My personal opinion is, if the language allows it, then (it would imply that) according to the C++ community, it doesn't break encapsulation, or if it does, then C++ allows it so as to achieve something very nobel (which otherwise isn't possible). Otherwise, I would say its just yet another misfeature of C++ just like the following:
Default argument in the middle of parameter list?
It is by design.
B::f is public. User access of f via a pointer to B is allowed. Since f is virtual, the call would be dispatched to derived classes' f.
But D::f is private, you can't access f via a pointer do D.