C++ std containers - polymorphism without pointers. Is it possible? - c++

Question

Is it possible to maintain knowledge of the derived class in any std c++ container without using pointers, dynamically casting return values from the container? I know I can create a vector or what ever of pointers of some base class type, and have them retain their sub classes. But the question is do I have to use pointers?
Example:
struct A {
int x = 0, y = 0, z = 0;
virtual void foo() { cout << "A" << endl; };
};
struct B : public A {
int a = 1, b = 1, c = 1;
virtual void foo() { cout << "B" << endl; };
};
int main() {
<SOMECONTAINER><A> a(2);
a[0] = A();
a[1] = B();
B * p;
B& n = dynamic_cast<B&>(a[1]); // Always throws?
p = dynamic_cast<B*>(&a[1]); // Always zero?
cout << p << endl;
}

Answer 1

Yes, you do have to use pointers. Otherwise, attempting to put a B into a container of A results in slicing: the B gets cut down into an A (this is not limited to containers, the exact same thing happens if you do A a = B() or if you pass a B to a function expecting an A).
When you later take it back out, it's an A that has absolutely no knowledge its lineage includes an illustrious forefather of type B -- and no matter what way you look at an A, you can't make it a B.

Answer 2

I am going to ignore alignment, or rather assume that data after a pointer is sufficiently aligned.
template<class T, unsigned N>
struct poly_anna;
template<class T,unsigned N>
struct poly_bob {
typedef poly_anna<T,N> poly_anna_;
T*(*get)(poly_anna_*) = nullptr;
void(*destroy)(poly_anna_*) = nullptr;
void(*move_to)(poly_anna_ *,poly_anna_*) = nullptr;
void(*copy_to)(poly_anna_ const*, poly_anna_*)=nullptr;
};
template<class T, unsigned N>
struct poly_anna {
private:
poly_bob<T,N> const*bob=nullptr;
char buff[N];
public:
template<class U> static poly_bob<T,N> const* get_bob() {
static poly_bob<T,N> b={
[](poly_anna*a)->T&{ return *(U*)&a->buff[0]; },
[](poly_anna*a){ ((U*)&a->buff[0])->~U(); a->bob = nullptr; },
[](poly_anna*s,poly_anna*d){
if (s->bob==d->bob){
*((U*)&d->buff[0])=std::move(*((U*)&d->buff[0]));
return;
}
if (d->bob != nullptr) {
d->bob->destroy(b);
}
d->store( std::move( *(U*)&s->buff[0] ) );
},
[](poly_anna const* s, poly_anna*d){
if (d->bob == s->bob){
*(U*)&d->buff[0] = *(U const*)&s->buff[0];
return;
}
if (d->bob){ d->bob->destroy(d); }
d->store( *(U const*)*s->buff[0] );
}
};
return &b;
};
template<class U_>
void store(U_&& u){
typedef typename std::decay<U_>::type U;
static_assert( sizeof(U)<=N, "N not large enough" );
if (bob) bob->destroy( this );
bob = get_bob<U>();
new (&buff[0]) U( std::forward<U_>(u) );
}
void reset(){ if (bob) bob->destroy(this); }
T& get() {
return bob->get(this);
}
T const& get() const {
return bob->get(const_cast<poly_anna*>(this));
}
poly_anna( poly_anna const& o ){
if (o.bob) o.bob->copy_to( &o, this );
}
poly_anna( poly_anna && o ){
if (o.bob) o.bob->move_to( &o, this );
}
poly_anna&operator=( poly_anna const& o ){
if (o.bob) o.bob->copy_to( &o, this );
else if (bob) bob->destroy(this);
return *this
}
poly_anna&operator=( poly_anna && o ){
if (o.bob) o.bob->move_to( &o, this );
else if (bob) bob->destroy(this);
return *this
}
poly_anna()=default;
~poly_anna(){if(bob)bob->destroy(this);}
explicit operator bool()const{return bob;}
};
That is my attempt at a polymorphic variant. It stores T and children of T so long as they are no larger than N and can be stored in std containers.
Let me know if it compiles.

Answer 3

You need pointers for virtual member function dispatch.
When you think about it, without pointers, you are left with "by value". Value semantics and and polymorphism don't really make sense together.
A value has a single context / type. It is atomic and simple. WYSIWIG, so to speak. Sure, you can cast it, but then you have ... another value.

Answer 4

There's an oft-quoted programmer proverb: There is no problem which cannot be solved with an additional layer of indirection, except too many layers of indirection.
Putting it into practice, take a look at boost::variant.
If your container stores boost::variants allowing all the (sub-)classes you want to store, you can avoid pointers.
That can be a win, but need not be.
Measure before you commit to such a solution.

Answer 5

I think there are actually two questions here:
Is it possible to get polymorphic semantics in an STL container without using pointers and the associated dynamic allocation?
Is is possible to retain the concrete type of a polymorphic object stored in an STL container?
The answer to 1 is yes, with some effort. As some have mentioned, one way to do this is to use a variant type like boost::variant. The problem with that approach is that you lose the ability to interact naturally with the objects stored in the variant and instead have to write visitors, which have a lot of syntactic overhead.
If the class hierarchy is bounded then a better approach might be to use a variation on boost::variant (no pun intended) specifically designed to preserve polymorphic semantics and its associated syntax. One example might be the emplacer. As noted in dyp's comment above, emplacer is a restricted variant.
As for question 2, I'm not aware of any way to do that without using typeid() or a hand-rolled type system.