Related
I'd like to be able to group similar functions in a class into a group so I don't need to append each name with what it's about.
I've seen this question which says that you can't have namespaces within classes. I've also seen this question which proposes using strongly typed enums. The problem here though, is that I'm not sure whether or not these enums can actually accomodate functions?
The problem contextualised:
class Semaphore
{
public:
void Set(bool State){Semaphore = State;}
bool Get(){return Semaphore;}
void Wait()
{
while (Semaphore)
{
//Wait until the node becomes available.
}
return;
}
private:
bool Semaphore = 0; //Don't operate on the same target simultaneously.
};
class Node : Semaphore
{
public:
unsigned long IP = 0; //IP should be stored in network order.
bool IsNeighbour = 0; //Single hop.
std::vector<int> OpenPorts;
//Rest of code...
};
Currently, NodeClass.Get() is how I can get the semaphore. However this introduces confusion as to what Get() actually gets. I'd like to have something akin to NodeClass.Semaphore::Get(). Otherwise I'd have to have the functions as SemaphoreSet(), SemaphoreGet(), and SemaphoreWait(), which isn't too well organised or nice looking.
I had thought of just having the Semaphore class on it's own, and instantiating it within the other classes, but if I could stick with the inheritance approach, that would be nicer.
So essentially, is it possible to access inherited methods like InheritedClass.Group::Function()?
If you really want to do this, you could force the user to call with the base class name by deleteing the member function in the subclass:
class Base {
public:
void Set(bool) { }
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
void Set(bool) = delete;
};
int main() {
Derived d;
// d.Set(true); // compiler error
d.Base::Set(true);
}
However, if the semantics of calling Set on the subclass are significantly different than what you'd expect them to be when calling Set on the base class, you should probably use a data member and name a member function accordingly as you've described:
class Base {
public:
void Set(bool) { }
};
class Derived {
public:
void SetBase(bool b) {
b_.Set(b);
}
private:
Base b_;
};
int main() {
Derived d;
d.SetBase(true);
}
I have seen multiple public and private keywords in a class definition, like the example below:
class myClass
{
public:
void func1(){}
public:
void func2(){}
private:
int x;
int y;
private:
int z;
int baz;
};
What is the practical use of this (if any)? Is there any situation in which this could be useful?
Is there any situation in which this could be useful?
I can think of a situation where it would be very problematic otherwise:
class myClass
{
public:
void func1(){}
public:
void func2(){}
COORDINATES; // <-- Note the macro here!
private:
int z;
int baz;
};
which, after the expansion of the COORDINATES macro, becomes:
class myClass
{
public:
void func1(){}
public:
void func2(){}
private:
int x;
int y;
private:
int z;
int baz;
};
If multiple private / public keywords weren't allowed, it would be very painful to do it. Although using macros isn't good practice; neither is introducing access modifiers silently for all the members appearing after the macro. Nevertheless, it could be useful for RAD tools generating C++ source code.
I can only guess why you see that in human written classes. My guess is that it is poor coding; the writer probably wanted to express that a chunk of data belongs together and / or wanted to be able to move up and down those chunks within the class definition, together with the corresponding access modifier (private/protected/public).
I'll go one step farther from my comment for this answer, with a snippet of code.
class myClass {
// initializers etc
public:
myClass();
~myClass();
// signal processing
public:
void modifyClass();
private:
float signalValue;
// other class responsibilities
public:
void doWork();
private:
void workHelper();
};
and so on. I wouldn't say this is a solid DESIGN for the class, but it's a good way to show the different capabilities of a class.
Another use is when you want to have a specific destruction order. Lets consider two cases:
Bad case
// Auxiliary class
Class StorageCleaner {
public:
StorageCleaner(ExternalStorage* storage) : storage_(storage);
~StorageCleaner() { storage_->DeleteEverything(); }
private:
ExternalStorage* const storage_; // Not owned
}
// Class with bad declaration order
Class ExternalStorageWrapper {
public:
ExternalStorageWrapper(ExternalStorage* storage) : cleaner_(storage) {
pointer_to_storage_.reset(storage);
}
const StorageCleaner cleaner_;
private:
std::unique_ptr<ExternalStorage> pointer_to_storage_;
// Other data which should be private
int other_int;
string other_string;
....
};
What happens when existing ExternalStorageWrapper object goes out of scope?
The ExternalStorageWrapper destructor will first
destroy other data
Then it will destroy external storage pointed by pointer_to_external_storage_ (because fields are destroyed in reversed declaration order).
Then it will attempt to destroy cleaner_
But cleaner inside its own destructor attempts to manipulate external storage, which has already been destroyed!
Good case
// Class StorageCleaner same as before
...
// Class with better declaration order
Class ExternalStorageWrapper {
private:
std::unique_ptr<ExternalStorage> pointer_to_storage_;
public:
ExternalStorageWrapper(ExternalStorage* storage) : cleaner_(storage) {
pointer_to_storage_.reset(storage);
}
const StorageCleaner cleaner_;
private:
// Other data which should be private
int other_int;
string other_string;
....
};
What happens in this case when existing ExternalStorageWrapper object goes out of scope?
The ExternalStorageWrapper destructor will first destroy other data.
Then it will attempt to destroy cleaner_. Cleaner will DeleteEverything() from storage using storage_ pointer to still existing storage.
Finally, storage gets destroyed through pointer_to_storage_.
I actually had to debug such problem in a company, so although rare, this peculiar case is possible to occur.
One use case I encounter is for the clarity. As shown in the example below, class1 inherits base class which contains a pure virtual function that class1 needs to implement. To indicate that method1 in class1 is coming from some other class class1 inherits from (e.g. base) instead of class1's own function, we use another public to make this point clear:
class base {
public:
virtual void method1() = 0;
}
class class1: base {
public:
myOwnMethod1();
myOwnMethod2();
public: /* base interface */
method1();
Just finished reading those examples. Hopefully this one could contribute on how useful multiple keyword definition is.
We don't quite need to assume much since this is my current problem as of now but consume the following:
class IOHandler {
public:
enum COLOR_DEFINITIONS : unsigned char
{
BLACK,
DARK_ER_BLUE,
DARK_GREEN,
DARK_SKY_BLUE,
DARK_RED,
DARK_PINK,
DARK_YELLOW,
DARK_WHITE,
DARK_GREY,
DARK_BLUE,
BRIGHT_GREEN,
BRIGHT_SKY_BLUE,
BRIGHT_RED,
BRIGHT_PINK,
BRIGHT_YELLOW,
BRIGHT_WHITE
};
template <typename dtEX>
void showOutputEx(dtEX literalOutput, _COLOR_OUTPUT textColorSet = {COLOR_DEFINITIONS::BRIGHT_WHITE , COLOR_DEFINITIONS::BRIGHT_YELLOW}, bool appendOutputType = true, OUTPUT_TYPE levelOutput = OUTPUT_TYPE::OUTPUT_NORMAL, EMBRACE_TYPE embraceOutputType = EMBRACE_TYPE::EMBRACE_OUTPUT_LEVEL, ...);
// ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doesn't detect the struct being referenced at which is at below.
private:
typedef struct colorProps // This is the struct that the public function where trying to get referenced at but failed to do so.
{
unsigned char C_BG = 0,
C_FG = 0;
} _COLOR_OUTPUT;
};
The error code.
identifier "_COLOR_OUTPUT" is undefined.
At this point, my intelliSense keep complaining that _COLOR_OUTPUT is undefined within public class scope.
The most probable solution is to put the struct inside public scope instead of private scope.
But I don't want to.
The reason this happens was due to the compiler reads the file from top to bottom. Anything that is declared
that requires reference should be on top and that should resolve the issue. Since I don't want to make things messed up by putting all private class functions and variables
on top. I should just declare another specifier on the top so that any public function requiring some reference might see it ahead.
So the solution is the following: (Is to move all referrable variables and struct on top of the class so that any private and public function argument reference is being recognized.)
class IOHandler {
// Private Class Scope for Variables and Structure
private:
typedef struct colorProps // This is the struct we move at the top for recognizing references.
{
unsigned char C_BG = 0,
C_FG = 0;
} _COLOR_OUTPUT;
public:
enum COLOR_DEFINITIONS : unsigned char
{
BLACK,
DARK_ER_BLUE,
DARK_GREEN,
DARK_SKY_BLUE,
DARK_RED,
DARK_PINK,
DARK_YELLOW,
DARK_WHITE,
DARK_GREY,
DARK_BLUE,
BRIGHT_GREEN,
BRIGHT_SKY_BLUE,
BRIGHT_RED,
BRIGHT_PINK,
BRIGHT_YELLOW,
BRIGHT_WHITE
};
template <typename dtEX>
void showOutputEx(dtEX literalOutput, _COLOR_OUTPUT textColorSet = {COLOR_DEFINITIONS::BRIGHT_WHITE , COLOR_DEFINITIONS::BRIGHT_YELLOW}, bool appendOutputType = true, OUTPUT_TYPE levelOutput = OUTPUT_TYPE::OUTPUT_NORMAL, EMBRACE_TYPE embraceOutputType = EMBRACE_TYPE::EMBRACE_OUTPUT_LEVEL, ...);
// ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now recognizable reference.
private:
... // Any other functions, excerpt.
};
I'm finding it difficult to describe this problem very concisely, so I've attached the code for a demonstration program.
The general idea is that we want a set of Derived classes that are forced to implement some abstract Foo() function from a Base class. Each of the derived Foo() calls must accept a different parameter as input, but all of the parameters should also be derived from a BaseInput class.
We see two possible solutions so far, neither we're very happy with:
Remove the Foo() function from the base class and reimplement it with the correct input types in each Derived class. This, however, removes the enforcement that it be implemented in the same manner in each derived class.
Do some kind of dynamic cast inside the receiving function to verify that the type received is correct. However, this does not prevent the programmer from making an error and passing the incorrect input data type. We would like the type to be passed to the Foo() function to be compile-time correct.
Is there some sort of pattern that could enforce this kind of behaviour? Is this whole idea breaking some sort of fundamental idea underlying OOP? We'd really like to hear your input on possible solutions outside of what we've come up with.
Thanks so much!
#include <iostream>
// these inputs will be sent to our Foo function below
class BaseInput {};
class Derived1Input : public BaseInput { public: int d1Custom; };
class Derived2Input : public BaseInput { public: float d2Custom; };
class Base
{
public:
virtual void Foo(BaseInput& i) = 0;
};
class Derived1 : public Base
{
public:
// we don't know what type the input is -- do we have to try to cast to what we want
// and see if it works?
virtual void Foo(BaseInput& i) { std::cout << "I don't want to cast this..." << std::endl; }
// prefer something like this, but then it's not overriding the Base implementation
//virtual void Foo(Derived1Input& i) { std::cout << "Derived1 did something with Derived1Input..." << std::endl; }
};
class Derived2 : public Base
{
public:
// we don't know what type the input is -- do we have to try to cast to what we want
// and see if it works?
virtual void Foo(BaseInput& i) { std::cout << "I don't want to cast this..." << std::endl; }
// prefer something like this, but then it's not overriding the Base implementation
//virtual void Foo(Derived2Input& i) { std::cout << "Derived2 did something with Derived2Input..." << std::endl; }
};
int main()
{
Derived1 d1; Derived1Input d1i;
Derived2 d2; Derived2Input d2i;
// set up some dummy data
d1i.d1Custom = 1;
d2i.d2Custom = 1.f;
d1.Foo(d2i); // this compiles, but is a mistake! how can we avoid this?
// Derived1::Foo() should only accept Derived1Input, but then
// we can't declare Foo() in the Base class.
return 0;
}
Since your Derived class is-a Base class, it should never tighten the base contract preconditions: if it has to behave like a Base, it should accept BaseInput allright. This is known as the Liskov Substitution Principle.
Although you can do runtime checking of your argument, you can never achieve a fully type-safe way of doing this: your compiler may be able to match the DerivedInput when it sees a Derived object (static type), but it can not know what subtype is going to be behind a Base object...
The requirements
DerivedX should take a DerivedXInput
DerivedX::Foo should be interface-equal to DerivedY::Foo
contradict: either the Foo methods are implemented in terms of the BaseInput, and thus have identical interfaces in all derived classes, or the DerivedXInput types differ, and they cannot have the same interface.
That's, in my opinion, the problem.
This problem occured to me, too, when writing tightly coupled classes that are handled in a type-unaware framework:
class Fruit {};
class FruitTree {
virtual Fruit* pick() = 0;
};
class FruitEater {
virtual void eat( Fruit* ) = 0;
};
class Banana : public Fruit {};
class BananaTree {
virtual Banana* pick() { return new Banana; }
};
class BananaEater : public FruitEater {
void eat( Fruit* f ){
assert( dynamic_cast<Banana*>(f)!=0 );
delete f;
}
};
And a framework:
struct FruitPipeLine {
FruitTree* tree;
FruitEater* eater;
void cycle(){
eater->eat( tree->pick() );
}
};
Now this proves a design that's too easily broken: there's no part in the design that aligns the trees with the eaters:
FruitPipeLine pipe = { new BananaTree, new LemonEater }; // compiles fine
pipe.cycle(); // crash, probably.
You may improve the cohesion of the design, and remove the need for virtual dispatching, by making it a template:
template<class F> class Tree {
F* pick(); // no implementation
};
template<class F> class Eater {
void eat( F* f ){ delete f; } // default implementation is possible
};
template<class F> PipeLine {
Tree<F> tree;
Eater<F> eater;
void cycle(){ eater.eat( tree.pick() ); }
};
The implementations are really template specializations:
template<> class Tree<Banana> {
Banana* pick(){ return new Banana; }
};
...
PipeLine<Banana> pipe; // can't be wrong
pipe.cycle(); // no typechecking needed.
You might be able to use a variation of the curiously recurring template pattern.
class Base {
public:
// Stuff that don't depend on the input type.
};
template <typename Input>
class Middle : public Base {
public:
virtual void Foo(Input &i) = 0;
};
class Derived1 : public Middle<Derived1Input> {
public:
virtual void Foo(Derived1Input &i) { ... }
};
class Derived2 : public Middle<Derived2Input> {
public:
virtual void Foo(Derived2Input &i) { ... }
};
This is untested, just a shot from the hip!
If you don't mind the dynamic cast, how about this:
Class BaseInput;
class Base
{
public:
void foo(BaseInput & x) { foo_dispatch(x); };
private:
virtual void foo_dispatch(BaseInput &) = 0;
};
template <typename TInput = BaseInput> // default value to enforce nothing
class FooDistpatch : public Base
{
virtual void foo_dispatch(BaseInput & x)
{
foo_impl(dynamic_cast<TInput &>(x));
}
virtual void foo_impl(TInput &) = 0;
};
class Derived1 : public FooDispatch<Der1Input>
{
virtual void foo_impl(Der1Input & x) { /* your implementation here */ }
};
That way, you've built the dynamic type checking into the intermediate class, and your clients only ever derive from FooDispatch<DerivedInput>.
What you are talking about are covariant argument types, and that is quite an uncommon feature in a language, as it breaks your contract: You promised to accept a base_input object because you inherit from base, but you want the compiler to reject all but a small subset of base_inputs...
It is much more common for programming languages to offer the opposite: contra-variant argument types, as the derived type will not only accept everything that it is bound to accept by the contract, but also other types.
At any rate, C++ does not offer contravariance in argument types either, only covariance in the return type.
C++ has a lot of dark areas, so it's hard to say any specific thing is undoable, but going from the dark areas I do know, without a cast, this cannot be done. The virtual function specified in the base class requires the argument type to remain the same in all the children.
I am sure a cast can be used in a non-painful way though, perhaps by giving the base class an Enum 'type' member that is uniquely set by the constructor of each possible child that might possibly inherit it. Foo() can then check that 'type' and determine which type it is before doing anything, and throwing an assertion if it is surprised by something unexpected. It isn't compile time, but it's the closest a compromise I can think of, while still having the benefits of requiring a Foo() be defined.
It's certainly restricted, but you can use/simulate coviarance in constructors parameters.
Is it possible in C++ to have a member function that is both static and virtual? Apparently, there isn't a straightforward way to do it (static virtual member(); is a compile error), but is there at least a way to achieve the same effect?
I.E:
struct Object
{
struct TypeInformation;
static virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const;
};
struct SomeObject : public Object
{
static virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const;
};
It makes sense to use GetTypeInformation() both on an instance (object->GetTypeInformation()) and on a class (SomeObject::GetTypeInformation()), which can be useful for comparisons and vital for templates.
The only ways I can think of involves writing two functions / a function and a constant, per class, or use macros.
Any other solutions?
No, there's no way to do it, since what would happen when you called Object::GetTypeInformation()? It can't know which derived class version to call since there's no object associated with it.
You'll have to make it a non-static virtual function to work properly; if you also want to be able to call a specific derived class's version non-virtually without an object instance, you'll have to provide a second redunduant static non-virtual version as well.
Many say it is not possible, I would go one step further and say it is not meaningfull.
A static member is something that does not relate to any instance, only to the class.
A virtual member is something that does not relate directly to any class, only to an instance.
So a static virtual member would be something that does not relate to any instance or any class.
I ran into this problem the other day: I had some classes full of static methods but I wanted to use inheritance and virtual methods and reduce code repetition. My solution was:
Instead of using static methods, use a singleton with virtual methods.
In other words, each class should contain a static method that you call to get a pointer to a single, shared instance of the class. You can make the true constructors private or protected so that outside code can't misuse it by creating additional instances.
In practice, using a singleton is a lot like using static methods except that you can take advantage of inheritance and virtual methods.
While Alsk has already given a pretty detailed answer, I'd like to add an alternative, since I think his enhanced implementation is overcomplicated.
We start with an abstract base class, that provides the interface for all the object types:
class Object
{
public:
virtual char* GetClassName() = 0;
};
Now we need an actual implementation. But to avoid having to write both the static and the virtual methods, we will have our actual object classes inherit the virtual methods. This does obviously only work, if the base class knows how to access the static member function. So we need to use a template and pass the actual objects class name to it:
template<class ObjectType>
class ObjectImpl : public Object
{
public:
virtual char* GetClassName()
{
return ObjectType::GetClassNameStatic();
}
};
Finally we need to implement our real object(s). Here we only need to implement the static member function, the virtual member functions will be inherited from the ObjectImpl template class, instantiated with the name of the derived class, so it will access it's static members.
class MyObject : public ObjectImpl<MyObject>
{
public:
static char* GetClassNameStatic()
{
return "MyObject";
}
};
class YourObject : public ObjectImpl<YourObject>
{
public:
static char* GetClassNameStatic()
{
return "YourObject";
}
};
Let's add some code to test:
char* GetObjectClassName(Object* object)
{
return object->GetClassName();
}
int main()
{
MyObject myObject;
YourObject yourObject;
printf("%s\n", MyObject::GetClassNameStatic());
printf("%s\n", myObject.GetClassName());
printf("%s\n", GetObjectClassName(&myObject));
printf("%s\n", YourObject::GetClassNameStatic());
printf("%s\n", yourObject.GetClassName());
printf("%s\n", GetObjectClassName(&yourObject));
return 0;
}
Addendum (Jan 12th 2019):
Instead of using the GetClassNameStatic() function, you can also define the the class name as a static member, even "inline", which IIRC works since C++11 (don't get scared by all the modifiers :)):
class MyObject : public ObjectImpl<MyObject>
{
public:
// Access this from the template class as `ObjectType::s_ClassName`
static inline const char* const s_ClassName = "MyObject";
// ...
};
It is possible!
But what exactly is possible, let's narrow down. People often want some kind of "static virtual function" because of duplication of code needed for being able to call the same function through static call "SomeDerivedClass::myfunction()" and polymorphic call "base_class_pointer->myfunction()". "Legal" method for allowing such functionality is duplication of function definitions:
class Object
{
public:
static string getTypeInformationStatic() { return "base class";}
virtual string getTypeInformation() { return getTypeInformationStatic(); }
};
class Foo: public Object
{
public:
static string getTypeInformationStatic() { return "derived class";}
virtual string getTypeInformation() { return getTypeInformationStatic(); }
};
What if base class has a great number of static functions and derived class has to override every of them and one forgot to provide a duplicating definition for virtual function. Right, we'll get some strange error during runtime which is hard to track down. Cause duplication of code is a bad thing. The following tries to resolve this problem (and I want to tell beforehand that it is completely type-safe and doesn't contain any black magic like typeid's or dynamic_cast's :)
So, we want to provide only one definition of getTypeInformation() per derived class and it is obvious that it has to be a definition of static function because it is not possible to call "SomeDerivedClass::getTypeInformation()" if getTypeInformation() is virtual. How can we call static function of derived class through pointer to base class? It is not possible with vtable because vtable stores pointers only to virtual functions and since we decided not to use virtual functions, we cannot modify vtable for our benefit. Then, to be able to access static function for derived class through pointer to base class we have to store somehow the type of an object within its base class. One approach is to make base class templatized using "curiously recurring template pattern" but it is not appropriate here and we'll use a technique called "type erasure":
class TypeKeeper
{
public:
virtual string getTypeInformation() = 0;
};
template<class T>
class TypeKeeperImpl: public TypeKeeper
{
public:
virtual string getTypeInformation() { return T::getTypeInformationStatic(); }
};
Now we can store the type of an object within base class "Object" with a variable "keeper":
class Object
{
public:
Object(){}
boost::scoped_ptr<TypeKeeper> keeper;
//not virtual
string getTypeInformation() const
{ return keeper? keeper->getTypeInformation(): string("base class"); }
};
In a derived class keeper must be initialized during construction:
class Foo: public Object
{
public:
Foo() { keeper.reset(new TypeKeeperImpl<Foo>()); }
//note the name of the function
static string getTypeInformationStatic()
{ return "class for proving static virtual functions concept"; }
};
Let's add syntactic sugar:
template<class T>
void override_static_functions(T* t)
{ t->keeper.reset(new TypeKeeperImpl<T>()); }
#define OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS override_static_functions(this)
Now declarations of descendants look like:
class Foo: public Object
{
public:
Foo() { OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS; }
static string getTypeInformationStatic()
{ return "class for proving static virtual functions concept"; }
};
class Bar: public Foo
{
public:
Bar() { OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS; }
static string getTypeInformationStatic()
{ return "another class for the same reason"; }
};
usage:
Object* obj = new Foo();
cout << obj->getTypeInformation() << endl; //calls Foo::getTypeInformationStatic()
obj = new Bar();
cout << obj->getTypeInformation() << endl; //calls Bar::getTypeInformationStatic()
Foo* foo = new Bar();
cout << foo->getTypeInformation() << endl; //calls Bar::getTypeInformationStatic()
Foo::getTypeInformation(); //compile-time error
Foo::getTypeInformationStatic(); //calls Foo::getTypeInformationStatic()
Bar::getTypeInformationStatic(); //calls Bar::getTypeInformationStatic()
Advantages:
less duplication of code (but we
have to call
OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS in every
constructor)
Disadvantages:
OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS in every
constructor
memory and performance
overhead
increased complexity
Open issues:
1) there are different names for static and virtual functions
how to solve ambiguity here?
class Foo
{
public:
static void f(bool f=true) { cout << "static";}
virtual void f() { cout << "virtual";}
};
//somewhere
Foo::f(); //calls static f(), no ambiguity
ptr_to_foo->f(); //ambiguity
2) how to implicitly call OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS inside every constructor?
It is possible. Make two functions: static and virtual
struct Object{
struct TypeInformation;
static const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformationStatic() const
{
return GetTypeInformationMain1();
}
virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const
{
return GetTypeInformationMain1();
}
protected:
static const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformationMain1(); // Main function
};
struct SomeObject : public Object {
static const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformationStatic() const
{
return GetTypeInformationMain2();
}
virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const
{
return GetTypeInformationMain2();
}
protected:
static const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformationMain2(); // Main function
};
No, this is not possible, because static member functions lack a this pointer. And static members (both functions and variables) are not really class members per-se. They just happen to be invoked by ClassName::member, and adhere to the class access specifiers. Their storage is defined somewhere outside the class; storage is not created each time you instantiated an object of the class. Pointers to class members are special in semantics and syntax. A pointer to a static member is a normal pointer in all regards.
virtual functions in a class needs the this pointer, and is very coupled to the class, hence they can't be static.
It's not possible, but that's just because an omission. It isn't something that "doesn't make sense" as a lot of people seem to claim. To be clear, I'm talking about something like this:
struct Base {
static virtual void sayMyName() {
cout << "Base\n";
}
};
struct Derived : public Base {
static void sayMyName() override {
cout << "Derived\n";
}
};
void foo(Base *b) {
b->sayMyName();
Derived::sayMyName(); // Also would work.
}
This is 100% something that could be implemented (it just hasn't), and I'd argue something that is useful.
Consider how normal virtual functions work. Remove the statics and add in some other stuff and we have:
struct Base {
virtual void sayMyName() {
cout << "Base\n";
}
virtual void foo() {
}
int somedata;
};
struct Derived : public Base {
void sayMyName() override {
cout << "Derived\n";
}
};
void foo(Base *b) {
b->sayMyName();
}
This works fine and basically what happens is the compiler makes two tables, called VTables, and assigns indices to the virtual functions like this
enum Base_Virtual_Functions {
sayMyName = 0;
foo = 1;
};
using VTable = void*[];
const VTable Base_VTable = {
&Base::sayMyName,
&Base::foo
};
const VTable Derived_VTable = {
&Derived::sayMyName,
&Base::foo
};
Next each class with virtual functions is augmented with another field that points to its VTable, so the compiler basically changes them to be like this:
struct Base {
VTable* vtable;
virtual void sayMyName() {
cout << "Base\n";
}
virtual void foo() {
}
int somedata;
};
struct Derived : public Base {
VTable* vtable;
void sayMyName() override {
cout << "Derived\n";
}
};
Then what actually happens when you call b->sayMyName()? Basically this:
b->vtable[Base_Virtual_Functions::sayMyName](b);
(The first parameter becomes this.)
Ok fine, so how would it work with static virtual functions? Well what's the difference between static and non-static member functions? The only difference is that the latter get a this pointer.
We can do exactly the same with static virtual functions - just remove the this pointer.
b->vtable[Base_Virtual_Functions::sayMyName]();
This could then support both syntaxes:
b->sayMyName(); // Prints "Base" or "Derived"...
Base::sayMyName(); // Always prints "Base".
So ignore all the naysayers. It does make sense. Why isn't it supported then? I think it's because it has very little benefit and could even be a little confusing.
The only technical advantage over a normal virtual function is that you don't need to pass this to the function but I don't think that would make any measurable difference to performance.
It does mean you don't have a separate static and non-static function for cases when you have an instance, and when you don't have an instance, but also it might be confusing that it's only really "virtual" when you use the instance call.
Well , quite a late answer but it is possible using the curiously recurring template pattern. This wikipedia article has the info you need and also the example under static polymorphism is what you are asked for.
This question is over a decade old, but it looks like it gets a good amount of traffic, so I wanted to post an alternative using modern C++ features that I haven't seen anywhere else.
This solution uses CRTP and SFINAE to perform static dispatching. That, in itself, is nothing new, but all such implementations I've found lack strict signature checking for "overrides." This implementation requires that the "overriding" method signature exactly matches that of the "overridden" method. This behavior more closely resembles that of virtual functions, while also allowing us to effectively overload and "override" a static method.
Note that I put override in quotes because, strictly speaking, we're not technically overriding anything. Instead, we're calling a dispatch method X with signature Y that forwards all of its arguments to T::X, where T is to the first type among a list of types such that T::X exists with signature Y. This list of types considered for dispatching can be anything, but generally would include a default implementation class and the derived class.
Implementation
#include <experimental/type_traits>
template <template <class...> class Op, class... Types>
struct dispatcher;
template <template <class...> class Op, class T>
struct dispatcher<Op, T> : std::experimental::detected_t<Op, T> {};
template <template <class...> class Op, class T, class... Types>
struct dispatcher<Op, T, Types...>
: std::experimental::detected_or_t<
typename dispatcher<Op, Types...>::type, Op, T> {};
// Helper to convert a signature to a function pointer
template <class Signature> struct function_ptr;
template <class R, class... Args> struct function_ptr<R(Args...)> {
using type = R (*)(Args...);
};
// Macro to simplify creation of the dispatcher
// NOTE: This macro isn't smart enough to handle creating an overloaded
// dispatcher because both dispatchers will try to use the same
// integral_constant type alias name. If you want to overload, do it
// manually or make a smarter macro that can somehow put the signature in
// the integral_constant type alias name.
#define virtual_static_method(name, signature, ...) \
template <class VSM_T> \
using vsm_##name##_type = std::integral_constant< \
function_ptr<signature>::type, &VSM_T::name>; \
\
template <class... VSM_Args> \
static auto name(VSM_Args&&... args) \
{ \
return dispatcher<vsm_##name##_type, __VA_ARGS__>::value( \
std::forward<VSM_Args>(args)...); \
}
Example Usage
#include <iostream>
template <class T>
struct Base {
// Define the default implementations
struct defaults {
static std::string alpha() { return "Base::alpha"; };
static std::string bravo(int) { return "Base::bravo"; }
};
// Create the dispatchers
virtual_static_method(alpha, std::string(void), T, defaults);
virtual_static_method(bravo, std::string(int), T, defaults);
static void where_are_the_turtles() {
std::cout << alpha() << std::endl; // Derived::alpha
std::cout << bravo(1) << std::endl; // Base::bravo
}
};
struct Derived : Base<Derived> {
// Overrides Base::alpha
static std::string alpha(){ return "Derived::alpha"; }
// Does not override Base::bravo because signatures differ (even though
// int is implicitly convertible to bool)
static std::string bravo(bool){ return "Derived::bravo"; }
};
int main() {
Derived::where_are_the_turtles();
}
I think what you're trying to do can be done through templates. I'm trying to read between the lines here. What you're trying to do is to call a method from some code, where it calls a derived version but the caller doesn't specify which class. Example:
class Foo {
public:
void M() {...}
};
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
void M() {...}
};
void Try()
{
xxx::M();
}
int main()
{
Try();
}
You want Try() to call the Bar version of M without specifying Bar. The way you do that for statics is to use a template. So change it like so:
class Foo {
public:
void M() {...}
};
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
void M() {...}
};
template <class T>
void Try()
{
T::M();
}
int main()
{
Try<Bar>();
}
No, Static member function can't be virtual .since virtual concept is resolved at run time with the help of vptr, and vptr is non static member of a class.due to that static member function can't acess vptr so static member can't be virtual.
No, its not possible, since static members are bound at compile time, while virtual members are bound at runtime.
If your desired use for a virtual static is to be able to define an interface over the static section of a class then there is a solution to your problem using C++20 concept's.
class ExBase { //object properties
public: virtual int do(int) = 0;
};
template <typename T> //type properties
concept ExReq = std::derived_from<T, ExBase> && requires(int i) { //~constexpr bool
{
T::do_static(i) //checks that this compiles
} -> std::same_as<int> //checks the expression type is int
};
class ExImpl : virtual public ExBase { //satisfies ExReq
public: int do(int i) override {return i;} //overrides do in ExBase
public: static int do_static(int i) {return i;} //satisfies ExReq
};
//...
void some_func(ExReq auto o) {o.do(0); decltype(o)::do_static(0);}
(this works the same way on members aswell!)
For more on how concepts work: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/constraints
For the standard concepts added in C++20: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/concepts
First, the replies are correct that what the OP is requesting is a contradiction in terms: virtual methods depend on the run-time type of an instance; static functions specifically don't depend on an instance -- just on a type. That said, it makes sense to have static functions return something specific to a type. For example, I had a family of MouseTool classes for the State pattern and I started having each one have a static function returning the keyboard modifier that went with it; I used those static functions in the factory function that made the correct MouseTool instance. That function checked the mouse state against MouseToolA::keyboardModifier(), MouseToolB::keyboardModifier(), etc. and then instantiated the appropriate one. Of course later I wanted to check if the state was right so I wanted write something like "if (keyboardModifier == dynamic_type(*state)::keyboardModifier())" (not real C++ syntax), which is what this question is asking.
So, if you find yourself wanting this, you may want to rething your solution. Still, I understand the desire to have static methods and then call them dynamically based on the dynamic type of an instance. I think the Visitor Pattern can give you what you want. It gives you what you want. It's a bit of extra code, but it could be useful for other visitors.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern for background.
struct ObjectVisitor;
struct Object
{
struct TypeInformation;
static TypeInformation GetTypeInformation();
virtual void accept(ObjectVisitor& v);
};
struct SomeObject : public Object
{
static TypeInformation GetTypeInformation();
virtual void accept(ObjectVisitor& v) const;
};
struct AnotherObject : public Object
{
static TypeInformation GetTypeInformation();
virtual void accept(ObjectVisitor& v) const;
};
Then for each concrete Object:
void SomeObject::accept(ObjectVisitor& v) const {
v.visit(*this); // The compiler statically picks the visit method based on *this being a const SomeObject&.
}
void AnotherObject::accept(ObjectVisitor& v) const {
v.visit(*this); // Here *this is a const AnotherObject& at compile time.
}
and then define the base visitor:
struct ObjectVisitor {
virtual ~ObjectVisitor() {}
virtual void visit(const SomeObject& o) {} // Or = 0, depending what you feel like.
virtual void visit(const AnotherObject& o) {} // Or = 0, depending what you feel like.
// More virtual void visit() methods for each Object class.
};
Then the concrete visitor that selects the appropriate static function:
struct ObjectVisitorGetTypeInfo {
Object::TypeInformation result;
virtual void visit(const SomeObject& o) {
result = SomeObject::GetTypeInformation();
}
virtual void visit(const AnotherObject& o) {
result = AnotherObject::GetTypeInformation();
}
// Again, an implementation for each concrete Object.
};
finally, use it:
void printInfo(Object& o) {
ObjectVisitorGetTypeInfo getTypeInfo;
Object::TypeInformation info = o.accept(getTypeInfo).result;
std::cout << info << std::endl;
}
Notes:
Constness left as an exercise.
You returned a reference from a static. Unless you have a singleton, that's questionable.
If you want to avoid copy-paste errors where one of your visit methods calls the wrong static function, you could use a templated helper function (which can't itself be virtual) t your visitor with a template like this:
struct ObjectVisitorGetTypeInfo {
Object::TypeInformation result;
virtual void visit(const SomeObject& o) { doVisit(o); }
virtual void visit(const AnotherObject& o) { doVisit(o); }
// Again, an implementation for each concrete Object.
private:
template <typename T>
void doVisit(const T& o) {
result = T::GetTypeInformation();
}
};
With c++ you can use static inheritance with the crt method. For the example, it is used widely on window template atl & wtl.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_pattern
To be simple, you have a class that is templated from itself like class myclass : public myancestor. From this point the myancestor class can now call your static T::YourImpl function.
I had a browse through the other answers and none of them seem to mention virtual function tables (vtable), which explains why this is not possible.
A static function inside a C++ class compiles to something which is effectively the same as any other function in a regular namespace.
In other words, when you declare a function static you are using the class name as a namespace rather than an object (which has an instance, with some associated data).
Let's quickly look at this...
// This example is the same as the example below
class ExampleClass
{
static void exampleFunction();
int someData;
};
// This example is the same as the example above
namespace ExampleClass
{
void exampleFunction();
// Doesn't work quite the same. Each instance of a class
// has independent data. Here the data is global.
int someData;
}
With that out of the way, and an understanding of what a static member function really is, we can now consider vtables.
If you declare any virtual function in a class, then the compiler creates a block of data which (usually) precedes other data members. This block of data contains runtime information which tells the program at runtime where in memory it needs to jump to in order to execute the correct (virtual) function for each instance of a class which might be created during runtime.
The important point here is "block of data". In order for that block of data to exist, it has to be stored as part of an instance of an object (class). If your function is static, then we already said it uses the name of the class as a namespace. There is no object associated with that function call.
To add slightly more detail: A static function does not have an implicit this pointer, which points to the memory where the object lives. Because it doesn't have that, you can't jump to a place in memory and find the vtable for that object. So you can't do virtual function dispatch.
I'm not an expert in compiler engineering by any means, but understanding things at least to this level of detail is helpful, and (hopefully?) makes it easy to understand why (at least in C++) static virtual does not make sense, and cannot be translated into something sensible by the compiler.
Maybe you can try my solution below:
class Base {
public:
Base(void);
virtual ~Base(void);
public:
virtual void MyVirtualFun(void) = 0;
static void MyStaticFun(void) { assert( mSelf != NULL); mSelf->MyVirtualFun(); }
private:
static Base* mSelf;
};
Base::mSelf = NULL;
Base::Base(void) {
mSelf = this;
}
Base::~Base(void) {
// please never delete mSelf or reset the Value of mSelf in any deconstructors
}
class DerivedClass : public Base {
public:
DerivedClass(void) : Base() {}
~DerivedClass(void){}
public:
virtual void MyVirtualFun(void) { cout<<"Hello, it is DerivedClass!"<<endl; }
};
int main() {
DerivedClass testCls;
testCls.MyStaticFun(); //correct way to invoke this kind of static fun
DerivedClass::MyStaticFun(); //wrong way
return 0;
}
Like others have said, there are 2 important pieces of information:
there is no this pointer when making a static function call and
the this pointer points to the structure where the virtual table, or thunk, are used to look up which runtime method to call.
A static function is determined at compile time.
I showed this code example in C++ static members in class; it shows that you can call a static method given a null pointer:
struct Foo
{
static int boo() { return 2; }
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
Foo* pFoo = NULL;
int b = pFoo->boo(); // b will now have the value 2
return 0;
}
I have a class (class A) that is designed to be inherited by other classes written by other people.
I also have another class (class B), that also inherits from A.
B has to access some A's member functions that shouldn't be accessed by other inheriting classes.
So, these A's member functions should be public for B, but private for others.
How can I solve it without using 'friend' directive?
Thank you.
EDIT: Example why I need it.
class A
{
public:
void PublicFunc()
{
PrivateFunc();
// and other code
}
private:
virtual void PrivateFunc();
};
class B : public class A
{
private:
virtual void PrivateFunc()
{
//do something and call A's PrivateFunc
A::PrivateFunc(); // Can't, it's private!
}
};
You can't. That's what friend is for.
An alternative would be to change the design/architecture of your program. But for hints on this I'd need some more context.
What you say is: there are two sets of subclasses of A. One set should have access, the other set shouldn't. It feels wrong to have only one brand of subclasses (i.e. B) 'see' A's members.
If what you mean is: only we can use this part of functionality, while our clients can't, there are other resorts.
(Functionality reuse by inheritance often corners you with this kind of problems. If you go towards reuse by aggregation, you may get around it.)
A suggestion:
// separate the 'invisible' from the 'visible'.
class A_private_part {
protected:
int inherited_content();
public:
int public_interface();
};
class B_internal : public A_private_part {
};
class A_export : private A_private_part {
public:
int public_interface() { A_private_part::public_interface(); }
};
// client code
class ClientClass : public A_export {
};
But better would be to go the aggregation way, and split the current "A" into a visible and an invisible part:
class InvisibleFunctionality {
};
class VisibleFunctionality {
};
class B {
InvisibleFunctionality m_Invisible;
VisibleFunctionality m_Visible;
};
// client code uses VisibleFunctionality only
class ClientClass {
VisibleFunctionality m_Visible;
};
Well - if you want exactly what you've described, then friend is the best solution. Every coding standard recommends not using friend but where the alternative design is more complex - then maybe it's worth making an exception.
To solve the problem without friend will require a different architecture
One solution might be to use a form of the pImpl idiom where 'B' derives from the inner implementation object, while the other clients derive from the outer class.
Another might be to place an extra layer of inheritance between 'A' and the "other clients". Something like:
class A {
public:
void foo ();
void bar ();
};
class B : public A { // OK access to both 'foo' and 'bar'
};
class ARestricted : private A {
public:
inline void foo () { A::foo (); }; // Forwards 'foo' only
};
However, this solution still has it's problems. 'ARestricted' cannot convert to an 'A' so this would need to be solved by some other "getter" for 'A'. However, you could name this function in such a way as it cannot be called accidentally:
inline A & get_base_type_A_for_interface_usage_only () { return *this; }
After trying to think of other solutions, and assuming that your hierarchy needs to be as you describe, I recommend you just use friend!
EDIT: So xtofl suggested renaming the types 'A' to 'AInternal' and 'ARestricted' to 'A'.
That works, except I noticed that 'B' would no longer be an 'A'. However, AInternal could be inherited virtually - and then 'B' could derive from both 'AInternal' and 'A'!
class AInternal {
public:
void foo ();
void bar ();
};
class A : private virtual AInternal {
public:
inline void foo () { A::foo (); }; // Forwards 'foo' only
};
// OK access to both 'foo' and 'bar' via AInternal
class B : public virtual AInternal, public A {
public:
void useMembers ()
{
AInternal::foo ();
AInternal::bar ();
}
};
void func (A const &);
int main ()
{
A a;
func (a);
B b;
func (b);
}
Of course now you have virtual bases and multiple inheritance! Hmmm....now, is that better or worse than a single friend declaration?
I think you have a bigger problem here. Your design doesn't seem sound.
1) I think the 'friend' construct is problematic to begin with
2) if 'friend' isn't what you want, you need to re-examine your design.
I think you either need to do something that just gets the job done, using 'friend' or develop a more robust architecture. Take a look at some design patterns, I'm sure you'll find something useful.
EDIT:
After seeing your sample code, you definitely need to re-arch. Class A may not be under your control, so that's a little tricky, but maybe want you want to re-do Class B to be a "has-a" class instead of an "is-a" class.
public Class B
{
B()
{
}
void someFunc()
{
A a; //the private functions is now called and a will be deleted when it goes out of scope
}
};
I find this a interesting challenge. Here is how I would solve the problem:
class AProtectedInterface
{
public:
int m_pi1;
};
class B;
class A : private AProtectedInterface
{
public:
void GetAProtectedInterface(B& b_class);
int m_p1;
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B();
void SetAProtectedInterface(::AProtectedInterface& interface);
private:
::AProtectedInterface* m_AProtectedInterface;
};
class C : public A
{
public:
C();
};
C::C()
{
m_p1 = 0;
// m_pi1 = 0; // not accessible error
}
B::B()
{
GetAProtectedInterface(*this);
// use m_AProtectedInterface to get to restricted areas of A
m_p1 = 0;
m_AProtectedInterface->m_pi1 = 0;
}
void A::GetAProtectedInterface(B& b_class)
{
b_class.SetAProtectedInterface(*this);
}
void B::SetAProtectedInterface(::AProtectedInterface& interface)
{
m_AProtectedInterface = &interface;
}
If you where going to use this sort of pattern all the time, you could reduce the code by using templates.
template<class T, class I>
class ProtectedInterfaceAccess : public I
{
public:
void SetProtectedInterface(T& protected_interface)
{
m_ProtectedInterface = &protected_interface;
}
protected:
T& GetProtectedInterface()
{
return *m_ProtectedInterface;
}
private:
T* m_ProtectedInterface;
};
template<class T, class I>
class ProtectedInterface : private T
{
public:
void SetupProtectedInterface(I& access_class)
{
access_class.SetProtectedInterface(*this);
}
};
class Bt;
class At : public ProtectedInterface <::AProtectedInterface, Bt>
{
public:
int m_p1;
};
class Bt : public ProtectedInterfaceAccess<::AProtectedInterface, At>
{
public:
Bt();
};
class Ct : public At
{
public:
Ct();
};
Ct::Ct()
{
m_p1 = 0;
// m_pi1 = 0; // not accessible error
}
Bt::Bt()
{
SetupProtectedInterface(*this);
m_p1 = 0;
GetProtectedInterface().m_pi1 = 0;
}
If I understand:
A will be subclassed by other developers.
B will be subclassed by other developers and inherits from A.
A has some methods you don't want accessible to outside developers through B.
I don't think this can be done without using friend. There is no way I know of to make members of a superclass available only to direct inheritors.