Big edit:
I have a code in which I have to add a constant member in a inherited class by using _elemente (which is a vector). Not to add a member in the inherited classes, just by using _elemente. In every inherited classes (let's say B, C, D and E) I withh have MAX_VAL1, MAX_VAL2 and so on with different values.
I tried:
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <vector>
typedef unsigned int Uint;
typedef vector<Uint> TVint;
typedef vector<Uint>::const_iterator TIterator;
class A
{
protected:
Uint _count;
TVint _elemente;
public:
//
};
class B : public A
{
const int MAX_VAL;
};
But it has a member and I don't have to have a member in the inherited class.
All the code here:
.h: http://pastebin.com/P3TZhWaV
.cpp: http://pastebin.com/ydwy2L5a
The work from the inherited classes is done using that constant members.
if MAX_VAL1 < count
{
throw Exception() {}
}
if (_elemente.size() == 0) // As _elemente is a vector from STL
{
_elemente.push_back(0);
}
for (int i = _elemente.size(); i < count; i++)
{
_elemente.push_back(_elemente[i * (i+1) / 2]);
}
}
I don't think that is correct as I have to use the Vector from STL and I don't really think that is the way the constant member from a inherited class without the actual member declared should be added.
Thanks for your help.
You could use a virtual function, something like this:
class A
{
virtual int max_val() const = 0;
protected:
Uint _count;
TVint _elemente;
public:
//
};
class B : public A
{
int max_val() const { return 42; }
};
if ( max_val() < _count ) ...
Based on other comments it seems like you want a const number that is accessible in the base class which can have a different value depending on the derived class. You could achieve that like this: https://ideone.com/JC7z1P
output:
A: 50
B: 80
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Base
{
private:
const int aNumber;
public:
// CTOR
Base( const int _aNumber ) :
aNumber( _aNumber ) {}
// check value
int getNumber() const
{
return aNumber;
}
};
class A : public Base
{
public:
A() : Base( 50 ) {}
};
class B : public Base
{
public:
B() : Base( 80 ) {}
};
int main() {
A a;
B b;
std::cout << "A: " << a.getNumber() << std::endl;
std::cout << "B: " << b.getNumber() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
When you write like
class B : public A
{
const int MAX_VAL;
};
what value do you expect B's class instance to hold with current approach?
Have you tried to add ctor to B (to initialize MAX_VAL to some exact value), so that whole class definition should be like
class B : public A
{
const int MAX_VAL;
public:
B(int max_val):MAX_VAL(max_val) {}
};
Also, the code above shows a lot of unanswered questions. Some of them:
Do you really need it to be member? mark it as 'static' (static const int MAX_VAL = 5) . That would mean, every B's instance MAX_VAL would be equal
All of type redifinitions don't look meaningful. What if you use intrisic types and auto?
Usually one doesn't compare size() with 0 - just calls empty().
Have you tried to read Stroustrup or Lippman?
If you want to access it statically, you can do it by using templates :
ABase gives polymorphic access to value
A gives static access to value
B and Care examples of usage
.
// This is the polymorphic root class
class ABase
{
public:
ABase(int maxV) : _maxV(maxV) {}
int maxValue() { return _maxV; }
private:
int _maxV;
};
// This class gives static method
template<int V_MaxValue>
class A : public ABase
{
public:
A() : ABase(V_MaxValue) {}
static int maxValue() { return V_MaxValue; }
};
class B : public A<42>
{
};
class C : public A<35>
{
};
// Static access (neex explicit class call) :
// B::maxValue() => 42
// C::maxValue() => 35
//
// Polymorphic call :
// ABase* poly = new B();
// poly->maxValue() => 42
Related
I want to make something functionally similar to this:
class Base
{
public:
const int ClassID = 1;
}
class Derived1 : public Base
{
public:
const int ClassID = 2;
}
class Derived2 : public Base
{
public:
const int ClassID = 3;
}
But, obviously, you can't override variables. What would be the best way to achieve the same functionality?
(The context for this is a video game where there are different troops, overridden from the same parent "BaseTroop" class. I want each troop to have its own ID that can be retrieved from anywhere)
Thanks in advance!
There is no way to change the default member initialiser in derived classes.
But, there is no need to rely on the default initialiser. You can provide an initialiser in the constructor:
struct Derived1 : Base
{
Derived1(): Base{2} {}
};
struct Derived2 : Base
{
Derived2(): Base{3} {}
};
Add a virtual function, returning the ID. You can also have a static variable or function returning the same ID, in case you want to get it without a class instance. You can also assign the IDs automatically, using CRTP:
#include <iostream>
struct BaseLow
{
virtual int GetId() const = 0;
virtual ~BaseLow() {}
};
namespace impl
{
int &GetIdCounter()
{
static int ret = 0;
return ret;
}
}
template <typename Derived>
struct Base : BaseLow
{
inline static const int id = impl::GetIdCounter()++;
int GetId() const override final
{
return id;
}
};
struct Derived1 : Base<Derived1> {};
struct Derived2 : Base<Derived2> {};
int main()
{
std::cout << Derived1::id << '\n'; // 0
std::cout << Derived2::id << '\n'; // 1
Derived1 d1;
Derived2 d2;
BaseLow *ptrs[] = {&d1, &d2};
for (BaseLow *ptr : ptrs)
std::cout << ptr->GetId() << '\n'; // 0, 1
}
Is there a good practice to access a derived virtual function from it's base class?
Here's what I got so far:
class A {
public:
enum class AType{A,B,C,D};
AType aType = AType::A;
virtual void Do(){}
};
class B : public A {
public:
int val = 0;
B(int i) {
aType = AType::B;
val = i;
}
void Do(){
std::cout << val << std::endl;
}
};
int main(){
std::map<std::string, A> bunch;
bunch["01"] = B(10);
bunch["02"] = B(15);
bunch["03"] = B(80);
for (auto& [k, b] : bunch){
switch (b.aType){
case A::AType::A:
break;
case A::AType::B:
static_cast<B&>(b).Do();
break;
}
}
}
I'm not too happy about using a switch there, any advice would be appreciated!
You should assign a pointer or reference to use polymorphism in C++. If you assign a child class as value, there would be a object slicing. I'd use std::unique_ptr than raw pointer like following, which prints out 10 15 80 as excepted.
#include <memory>
#include <map>
class A {
public:
enum class AType { A, B, C, D };
AType aType = AType::A;
virtual void Do() {}
};
class B : public A {
public:
int val = 0;
B(int i) {
aType = AType::B;
val = i;
}
void Do() override {
std::cout << val << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<A>> bunch;
bunch["01"] = std::make_unique<B>(10);
bunch["02"] = std::make_unique<B>(15);
bunch["03"] = std::make_unique<B>(80);
for (auto& [k, b] : bunch) {
b->Do();
}
return 0;
}
First, what're showing isn't what I'd call "calling from base class". Otherwise,
calling derived virtual methods from a base class method is one of the main reasons to use virtual functions. The other reason is to call a method via pointer to base class, like you intend to do.
Also, as mentioned above, in:
bunch["01"] = B(10);
a temporary object of B type is silently cast (sliced) to object of class A. You should use perhaps map of pointers to A.
I would like to have to counters for each class type that that was ever instantiated. As a starting point someone sugested this approach as an example:
class Person
{
public:
Person() {
objects.push_back(this);
}
virtual ~Person() {
objects.erase(this);
}
static void print_types()
{
for (auto pers : container)
{
std::cout << typeid(*pers).name() << "\n";
}
}
private:
static std::set<const Person*> objects;
};
class Employee : public Person
{
};
class Employee2 : public Employee
{
};
Each time one of the classes is instatiated I keep track of the objects and I can use print_types() to know how many of which type I've created so far. Notice that Employee2 inherits from Employee and not from Person (i need this to work for chain inheritance)
I would like to extend this so that I have two counters per type: created and alive. The problem is that you can't easily mantain the counters from the constructor/destructor of the base class, Person, because typeid(*this) will return the base class type when called from constructor/destructor.
Another suggestion was to use CRTP pattern but this doesn't work when you use chained inheritance.
Is there another way to implement such counters ?
I just played around a bit. Maybe this helps you. It always prints the value of the right class (not the base class).
But it's practically the same^^.
Header:
#include <set>
#include <string>
class observeable;
class observer
{
public:
observer() = delete;
static void print();
static std::set< observeable* > items;
};
class observeable
{
public:
observeable();
virtual ~observeable();
virtual std::string get_typeid();
};
Source:
std::set< observeable* > observer::items;
void observer::print()
{
std::cout << "Called" << std::endl;
for( auto item : items )
std::cout << item->get_typeid() << std::endl;
}
observeable::observeable()
{
observer::items.insert( this );
}
observeable::~observeable()
{
observer::items.erase( this );
}
std::string observeable::get_typeid()
{
return std::string( typeid(*this).name() );
}
Main:
#include <memory>
class A : observeable
{};
class B : A
{};
class C : observeable
{};
int main()
{
A a;
B b;
observer::print(); // A B present
{
C d;
}
observer::print(); // no C present
auto d_heap = std::shared_ptr<C>( new C() );
observer::print(); // C present
return 0;
}
In multiple inheritance,where all the base class contains same function name with different functionality, we can access the protected function from particular base class using "::" scope resolution operator.
However, I tried something else. I created the objects of the base class in inside the child class. And tried calling the function using through object of that particular class.
But I was getting the following compiler error:
"‘void A::func(int&)’ is protected within this context."
Please let me know where did i go wrong.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
protected:
void func(int & a)
{
a = a * 2;
}
};
class B
{
protected:
void func(int & a)
{
a = a * 3;
}
};
class C
{
protected:
void func(int & a)
{
a = a * 5;
}
};
class D : public A,public B,public C {
public:
int a;
A a_val;
B b_val;
C c_val;
void update_val(int new_val)
{
a = new_val;
a_val.func(a);
b_val.func(a);
c_val.func(a);
}
void check(int);
};
void D::check(int new_val)
{
update_val(new_val);
cout << "Value = " << a << endl;
};
int main()
{
D d;
int new_val;
cin >> new_val;
d.check(new_val);
}
If you want to keep your code with the base classes as having independent functionality and still remaining protected the easiest way to resolve your issue is by slightly changing the name of your protected functions and adding a public function that calls the protected members: See these class declarations for example:
class A {
public:
void func( int& a ) {
func_impl( a );
}
protected:
void func_impl( int& a ) {
a = a * 2;
}
};
class B {
public:
void func( int& b ) {
func_impl( b );
}
protected:
void func_impl( int& b ) {
b = b * 3;
}
};
class C {
public:
void func( int& c ) {
func_impl( c );
}
protected:
void func_impl( int& c ) {
c = c * 5;
}
};
class D : public A, public B, public C {
public:
int a;
A a_val;
B b_val;
C c_val;
void update_val( int val ) {
a = val;
a_val.func( a );
b_val.func( a );
c_val.func( a );
}
void check( int );
};
void D::check( int val ) {
update_val( val );
std::cout << "Value = " << a << std::endl;
}
This provides a nice public interface to call the protected member functions. This also resolves the issue of accessing the protected members. When I run your program and input a value of 5 it returns a result of 150 and works as expected.
This snippet should show you how inheritance works and when you can and can not access protected members:
class DerivedA : public Base {
public:
Base b;
void call_message() {
b.message(); // Protected Member of Base class can not be accessed
}
};
class DerivedB : public Base {
public:
void call_message() {
message(); // This works without problem!
}
};
Just as I did above one way to resolve this is by adding a public interface caller to the protected implementation.
class Base {
public:
void message() {
message_impl();
}
protected:
void message_impl() {
std::cout << "This is a protected member of Base\n";
}
};
Now you can do this:
class DerivedA {
public:
Base b;
void call_message() {
b.message(); // Accessible through public interface.
}
};
When you are in your derived class, it has access to its own ancestor methods. But it doesn't have access to your variables member protected and private methods and variables.
Redesign your code, you are trying things and contorting the other classes design for bad reasons. Francis' code is a good solution, but D doesn't need to inherit from anything.
If you don't want to create another function, you can do something like this:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
protected:
void func(int & a)
{
a = a * 2;
}
};
class B
{
protected:
void func(int & a)
{
a = a * 3;
}
};
class C
{
protected:
void func(int & a)
{
a = a * 5;
}
};
class D : public A,public B,public C {
public:
int a;
void update_val(int new_val)
{
a = new_val;
this->A::func(a);
this->B::func(a);
this->C::func(a);
}
void check(int);
};
void D::check(int new_val)
{
update_val(new_val);
cout << "Value = " << a << endl;
};
int main()
{
D d;
int new_val;
cin >> new_val;
d.check(new_val);
}
This works because, this refers to the current instance of class D, and it already inherits class A, class B, class C. So you can directly access the protected functions of the respective classes.
Remember: It will not work if you have not inherited the classes.
I try to write an internal class that inherits from the real class for testing. The internal class copies temporary variables pass between classes.
Example:
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
class Internal_a;
class A {
public:
A() {}
const int test() const { return std::rand() % 10; }
private:
friend class Internal_a;
};
class Internal_a : public A {
public:
int test() {
_val = A::test();
return _val;
}
int _val;
};
class C {
public:
C(const A& a) { _x = a.test() * 2; }
private:
int _x;
};
int main() {
Internal_a i_a;
C c(i_a);
std::cout << i_a._val << "\n";
}
Problem:
The i_a._val value is not a copy of the result of A::test() during the construction of the c object. This is because inheritance doesn't work that way (ok, I just learned that.)
How to write a test that checks that temporary value (A::test()) ?