Implementing a class hierarchy properly - c++

Question

Say I have an interface hierarchy :
class A
{
virtual void commonFunc() = 0;
};
class B1 : public A
{
virtual void b1SpecificFunc() = 0;
};
class B2 : public A
{
virtual void b2SpecificFunc() = 0;
};
Interface A only exist to avoid duplicating the commonFunc() function.
Now if I want to implement this in order to have 2 instanciatable classes ImplB1 and ImplB2 i could do :
class ImplA
{
virtual void commonFunc();
};
class ImplB1 : public ImplA
{
virtual void b1SpecificFunc();
};
class ImplB2 : public ImplA
{
virtual void b2SpecificFunc();
};
The problem with this is that it makes ImplA instanciatable, which I don't want to. I only want ImplB1 and ImplB2 to be instanciatable, because ImplA is something asbtract that only exist to have the implementation of the common function in common.
How could i design this please ? Thank you.

Answer 1

Interface A only exist to avoid duplicating the commonFunc() function.
You certainly mean to avoid duplicating its declaration, don't you?
class ImplA
{
virtual void commonFunc();
};
This should probably be:
class ImplA : public A
{
virtual void commonFunc();
};
And I guess the point is that ImplA actually has an implementation of commonFunc. So for the sake of this answer's brevity, let's put it into the class definition:
class ImplA : public A
{
virtual void commonFunc() {} // implementation
};
The problem with this is that it makes ImplA instanciatable.
Just make ImplA's destructor pure virtual:
class ImplA : public A
{
public:
virtual ~ImplA() = 0 {}
private:
virtual void commonFunc() {}
};
This will prevent instantiation even inside of derived classes' functions. For example, the following will create a compiler error:
class ImplB1 : public ImplA
{
public:
virtual void b1SpecificFunc()
{
ImplA a; // error, cannot instantiate abstract class
}
};
In fact, you will not even be able to instantiate the class in its own functions:
class ImplA : public A
{
public:
virtual ~ImplA() = 0 {}
private:
virtual void commonFunc()
{
ImplA a; // error, cannot instantiate abstract class
}
};
But seriously, this all seems pretty over-engineered. Perhaps what you really need is to make commonFunc a non-virtual protected function of A, which derived classes can then call if they need to.
Or perhaps commonFunc can just be a free-standing utility function?

Answer 2

You can do the following. Also, here is a SO question/answer about this.
Note: While I'm answering the question that you can do this I'm not asserting it's what you should do.
Code
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
virtual void commonFunc() = 0;
};
void A::commonFunc() // Pure virtual but implemented anyway
{
// Derived classes can explicitly opt-in to this implementation
std::cout << "A::commonFunc()\n";
}
class B1 : public A
{
public:
virtual void b1SpecificFunc() = 0;
};
class B2 : public A
{
virtual void b2SpecificFunc() = 0;
};
class ImplB1 : public B1
{
public:
// This function must be implemented because its declared pure virtual
virtual void commonFunc()
{
// Can override the behavior if desired...
A::commonFunc(); // Explicitly use default implementation
}
virtual void b1SpecificFunc()
{
std::cout << "b1SpecificFunc()\n";
}
};
class ImplB2 : public B2
{
public:
// This function must be implemented because its declared pure virtual
virtual void commonFunc()
{
// Can override the behavior if desired...
A::commonFunc(); // Explicitly use default implementation
}
virtual void b2SpecificFunc()
{
std::cout << "b2SpecificFunc()\n";
}
};
int main()
{
//A a; // Won't compile (as expected/desired)
ImplB1 b1;
ImplB2 b2;
b1.commonFunc();
b1.b1SpecificFunc();
b2.commonFunc();
b2.b2SpecificFunc();
return 0;
}
Output
A::commonFunc()
b1SpecificFunc()
A::commonFunc()
b2SpecificFunc()