Related
I am working with a GitHub library and ran across a derived class instantiation that perplexes me. In abbreviated form,
class A
{
public:
A() {}
int AFunc(void) { return(1); }
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B(void) : A() {}
int BFunc(void) { return(2); }
};
Within an include file, the class is instantiated as follows:
A &tObject = *(new B());
Sample code then refers to 'tObject' as global variable calling methods from class A and/or B.
For example:
tObject.AFunc();
tObject.BFunc();
So here's the question, is that instantiation legal?
The compiler is only fussing on the call to a service class's method, saying that class A has no such member. That error makes sense to me and I've narrowed the issue to the above explanation.
While I do not have broad compiler experience, I have been programming in C++ for many years. I've never seen such a construct.
Would someone kindly explain how an object declared, in my example, as 'class A' can access methods from the derived class B?
In my experience, I've always declared the derived class as a pointer and then accessed methods from the base or derived class using the '->' construct. Oftentimes, I've stored the derived class as a pointer to the base and then performed a cast to convert when or if I needed access to the derived class's methods.
An insight is highly appreciated.
It cannot. The compiler is right to complain, there is no way this is valid. Remember that C++ is a static language, which means that the compiler will try to find a function named BFunc in A, which it cannot, as there is no such function.
This might be a compiler extension of some sort, but anyways, this isn't legal standard C++. Most probably, the author wanted to make BFunc a virtual method in A, which would have made the access legal.
Would someone kindly explain how an object declared, in my example, as 'class A' can access methods from the derived class B?
As explained, this cannot be.
I've always declared the derived class as a pointer and then accessed methods from the base or derived class using the '->' construct.
You can also do this with references, not just with pointers. Although this is done less often than pointers, so this might explain why you haven't encountered this yet.
Oftentimes, I've stored the derived class as a pointer to the base and then performed a cast to convert when or if I needed access to the derived class's methods.
Exactly, this is the correct way to access the derived class members. As then the compiler will know the type of the object and can actually find BFunc and call it. Now, if the type is not really a B, then you have undefined behavior, but yes, this is what one should do.
Also, please get your terminology right:
the class is instantiated as follows
If there are no templates involved, then there is no instantiation happening. The only thing you are doing here is declaring or more specifically defining a variable named tObject.
// The declaration of the reference as a reference to the base class is not a problem, and is actually performed in some STL implementations.
class A
{
};
class B : public A
{
public:
void f1() {}
};
int main()
{
A * a = new B; // You know its OK using pointers
A & a2 = *(new B); // Also OK, a2 is a reference for a place in memory which is-a-kind-of A
// a2.f1(); // Will not compile - compiler only knows for sure its of type A
((B&) a2).f1(); // This will work. There is really a B there
return 0;
}
I have a virtual base class function which should never be used in a particular derived class. Is there a way to 'delete' it? I can of course just give it an empty definition but I would rather make its attempted use throw a compile-time error. The C++11 delete specifier seems like what I would want, but
class B
{
virtual void f();
};
class D : public B
{
virtual void f() = delete; //Error
};
won't compile; gcc, at least, explicitly won't let me delete a function that has a non-deleted base version. Is there another way to get the same functionality?
It is not allowed by the standard, however you could use one of the following two workarounds to get a similar behaviour.
The first would be to use using to change the visibility of the method to private, thus preventing others from using it. The problem with that solution is, that calling the method on a pointer of the super-class does not result in a compilation error.
class B
{
public:
virtual void f();
};
class D : public B
{
private:
using B::f;
};
The best solution I have found so far to get a compile-time error when calling Ds method is by using a static_assert with a generic struct that inherits from false_type. As long as noone ever calls the method, the struct stays undefied and the static_assert won't fail.
If the method is called however, the struct is defined and its value is false, so the static_assert fails.
If the method is not called, but you try to call it on a pointer of the super class, then Ds method is not defined and you get an undefined reference compilation error.
template <typename T>
struct fail : std::false_type
{
};
class B
{
public:
virtual void f()
{
}
};
class D : public B
{
public:
template<typename T = bool>
void
f()
{
static_assert (fail<T>::value, "Do not use!");
}
};
Another workaround would be to throw an exception when the method is used, but that would only throw up on run-time.
The standard does not allow you to delete any member of a base-class in a derived class for good reason:
Doing so breaks inheritance, specifically the "is-a" relationship.
For related reasons, it does not allow a derived class to define a function deleted in the base-class:
The hook is not any longer part of the base-class contract, and thus it stops you from relying on previous guarantees which no longer hold.
If you want to get tricky, you can force an error, but it will have to be link-time instead of compile-time:
Declare the member function but don't ever define it (This is not 100% guaranteed to work for virtual functions though).
Better also take a look at the GCC deprecated attribute for earlier warnings __attribute__ ((deprecated)).
For details and similar MS magic: C++ mark as deprecated
"I have a virtual base class function which should never be used in a particular derived class."
In some respects that is a contradiction. The whole point of virtual functions is to provide different implementations of the contract provided by the base class. What you are trying to do is break the contract. The C++ language is designed to prevent you from doing that. This is why it forces you to implement pure virtual functions when you instantiate an object. And that is why it won't let you delete part of the contract.
What is happening is a good thing. It is probably preventing you from implementing an inappropriate design choice.
However:
Sometimes it can be appropriate to have a blank implementation that does nothing:
void MyClass::my_virtual_function()
{
// nothing here
}
Or a blank implementation that returns a "failed" status:
bool MyClass::my_virtual_function()
{
return false;
}
It all depends what you are trying to do. Perhaps if you could give more information as to what you are trying to achieve someone can point you in the right direction.
EDIT
If you think about it, to avoid calling the function for a specific derived type, the caller would need to know what type it is calling. The whole point of calling a base class reference/pointer is that you don't know which derived type will receive the call.
What you can do is simply throwing an exception in the derived implementation. For example, the Java Collections framework does this quite excessively: When an update operation is performed on a collection that is immutable, the corresponding method simply throws an UnsupportedOperationException. You can do the same in C++.
Of course, this will show a malicious use of the function only at runtime; not at compile time. However, with virtual methods, you are unable to catch such errors at compile time anyway because of polymorphism. E.g.:
B* b = new D();
b.f();
Here, you store a D in a B* variable. So, even if there was a way to tell the compiler that you are not allowed to call f on a D, the compiler would be unable to report this error here, because it only sees B.
I have a virtual base class function which should never be used in a particular derived class.
C++11 provides a keyword final which prevents a virtual function being overriden from.
Look: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/final .
class B
{
virtual void f() final;
};
class D : public B
{
// virtual void f(); // a compile-time error
// void f() override; // a compile-time error
void f(); // non-virtual function, it's ok
};
I read an answer some time back to a question regarding dynamic_cast. The dynamic_cast failed to work because the base class had no virtual methods. One of the answers said that deriving from classes with no virtual methods generally means a bad design. Is this correct? Even without taking advantage of polymorphism, I still can't see the wrongness in doing this.
It depends what we're talking about:
for Traits classes (no data) it's fine (std::unary_function comes to mind)
for private inheritance (used instead of composition to benefit from Empty Base Optimization) it's fine too
The problem comes when you starts treating such a Derived object polymorphically wrt this Base class. If you ever attain such a position, then it's definite code smell.
Note: Even when noted as fine above, you are still providing the ability to use the class polymorphically, and you thus expose yourself to subtle bugs.
Deriving from a class is always a valid option, for the sake of code reuse.
Sometimes, we are not looking for polymorphic behavior. That's OK - there's a reason we have that option. If this is the case, though, then consider using private inheritance instead - if your class isn't meant to be polymorphic, then there's no reason for anyone to try to use it polymorphically.
Here is an OK example, to factor behaviors into policies (note the protected destructor):
struct some_policy
{
// Some non-virtual interface here
protected:
~some_policy() { ... }
private:
// Some state here
};
struct some_class : some_policy, some_other_policy { ... };
Another Ok example, to avoid code bloat in templates. Note the protected destructor:
struct base_vector
{
// Put everything which doesn't depend
// on a template parameter here
protected:
~base_vector() { ... }
};
template <typename T>
struct vector : base_vector
{ ... };
Another example, called CRTP. Note the protected destructor:
template <typename Base>
struct some_concept
{
void do_something { static_cast<Base*>(this)->do_some_other_thing(); }
protected:
~some_concept() { ... }
};
struct some_class : some_concept<some_class> { ... };
Another example, called Empty Base Optimization. Not really inheritance per se, since it is more a trick to allow the compiler to reserve no space in some_class for the base class (which acts as a private member).
template <typename T>
struct some_state_which_can_be_empty { ... };
template <typename T>
struct some_class : private some_state_which_can_be_empty<T> { ... };
As a rule of thumb, classes you inherit from should have either virtual or protected destructor.
Inheritance without virtual methods in C++ is nothing more than a code reuse.
I can't think of inheritance without polymorphism.
Some classes in the C++ standard library have protected members (which are only meaningful to a derived class) but no virtual member functions. I.e., they're designed for derivation, without having virtuals. This proves that it must generally be bad design to derive from a class without virtuals.
Cheers & hth.,
We have a restriction that a class cannot act as a base-class for more than 7 classes.
Is there a way to enforce the above rule at compile-time?
I am aware of Andrew Koenig's Usable_Lock technique to prevent a class from being inherited but it would fail only when we try to instantiate the class. Can this not be done when deriving itself?
The base-class is allowed to know who are its children. So i guess we can declare a combination of friend
classes and encapsulate them to enforce this rule. Suppose we try something like this
class AA {
friend class BB;
private:
AA() {}
~AA() {}
};
class BB : public AA {
};
class CC : public AA
{};
The derivation of class CC would generate a compiler warning abt inaccessible dtor. We can then flag
such warnings as errors using compiler tweaks (like flag all warnings as errors), but i would not like to rely on such techniques.
Another way, but to me looks rather clumsy is:-
class B;
class InheritanceRule{
class A {
public:
A() {}
~A() {}
};
friend class B;
};
class B {
public:
class C : public InheritanceRule::A
{};
};
class D : public InheritanceRule::A{};
The derivation of class D will be flagged as a compiler error, meaning all the classes to be derived should be derived inside class B. This will allow atleast an inspection of the number of classes derived from class A but would not prevent anyone from adding more.
Anyone here who has a way of doing it ? Better still if the base-class need not know who are its children.
NOTE: The class which acts as a base-class can itself be instantiated (it is not abstract).
Thanks in advance,
EDIT-1: As per Comment from jon.h, a slight modification
// create a template class without a body, so all uses of it fail
template < typename D>
class AllowedInheritance;
class Derived; // forward declaration
// but allow Derived by explicit specialization
template<>
class AllowedInheritance< Derived> {};
template<class T>
class Base : private AllowedInheritance<T> {};
// privately inherit Derived from that explicit specialization
class Derived : public Base<Derived> {};
// Do the same with class Fail Error
// it has no explicit specialization, so it causes a compiler error
class Fail : public Base<Fail> {}; // this is error
int main()
{
Derived d;
return 0;
}
Sorry, I don't know how to enforce any such limit using the compiler.
Personally I wouldn't bother trying to force the rule into the code itself - you are cluttering the code with stuff that has nothing to do with what the code is doing - it's not clean code.
Rather than jumping through hoops, I'd try to get that rule relaxed. Instead it should be a guideline that could be broken if necessary and in agreement with others in the team.
Of course, I lack the knowledge of exactly what you're doing so the rule could be appropriate, but in general it probably isn't.
Any programming "rule" that says you must never do x or you must always do y is almost always wrong! Notice the word "almost" in there.
Sometimes you might need more than 7 derived classes - what do you do then? Jump through more hoops. Also, why 7? Why not 6 or 8? It's just so arbitrary - another sign of a poor rule.
If you must do it, as JP says, static analysis is probably the better way.
I'm tired as crap, can barely keep my eyes open, so there's probably a more elegant way to do this, and I'm certainly not endorsing the bizarre idea that a Base should have at most seven subclasses.
// create a template class without a body, so all uses of it fail
template < typename D, typename B> class AllowedInheritance;
class Base {};
class Derived; // forward declaration
// but allow Derived, Base by explicit specialization
template<> class AllowedInheritance< Derived, Base> {};
// privately inherit Derived from that explicit specialization
class Derived : public Base, private AllowedInheritance<Derived, Base> {};
// Do the same with class Compiler Error
// it has no explicit specialization, so it causes a compiler error
class CompileError: public Base,
private AllowedInheritance<CompileError, Base> { };
//error: invalid use of incomplete type
//‘struct AllowedInheritance<CompileError, Base>’
int main() {
Base b;
Derived d;
return 0;
}
Comment from jon.h:
How does this stop for instance: class Fail : public Base { }; ? \
It doesn't. But then neither did the OP's original example.
To the OP: your revision of my answer is pretty much a straight application of Coplien's "Curiously recurring template pattern"]
I'd considered that as well, but the problem with that there's no inheritance relationship between a derived1 : pubic base<derived1> and a derived2 : pubic base<derived2>, because base<derived1> and base<derived2> are two completely unrelated classes.
If your only concern is inheritance of implementation, this is no problem, but if you want inheritance of interface, your solution breaks that.
I think there is a way to get both inheritance and a cleaner syntax; as I mentioned I was pretty tired when I wrote my solution. If nothing else, by making RealBase a base class of Base in your example is a quick fix.
There are probably a number of ways to clean this up. But I want to emphasize that I agree with markh44: even though my solution is cleaner, we're still cluttering the code in support of a rule that makes little sense. Just because this can be done, doesn't mean it should be.
If the base class in question is ten years old and too fragile to be inherited from, the real answer is to fix it.
Lots of the various static code analysis tools provide information about inheritance hierarchy. Rather than try and handle it in your code, I would look into a tool that could set up some rules for inheritance hierarchy and fail the build if those rules are not followed. Might cost a little $ and you might have to write a custom rule (I've seen inheritance depth, but not inheritance "breadth" like you want). But, in the long run, I think that's your best bet.
Per comment: I've used Coverity with some success. Bit spendy. There are several good SO threads that may have better options.
Rather than cluttering the code with assertions, you might be able to use something like GCC-XML, which parses C++ source using the g++ compiler frontend and generates XML output. I expect that it would be reasonably straightforward to develop a tool that parses this output and checks for violations of the rule; this could then be integrated with source code check-in.
BTW, having base classes know about their descendants violates the Open-Closed Principle, meaning that it actually undercuts the usefulness of OO programming in general. The main reason for separating code into base classes and subclasses is so that the base class does not have to know about its subclasses -- this makes possible things like plugin packages delivered after installation.
My style of coding includes the following idiom:
class Derived : public Base
{
public :
typedef Base super; // note that it could be hidden in
// protected/private section, instead
// Etc.
} ;
This enables me to use "super" as an alias to Base, for example, in constructors:
Derived(int i, int j)
: super(i), J(j)
{
}
Or even when calling the method from the base class inside its overridden version:
void Derived::foo()
{
super::foo() ;
// ... And then, do something else
}
It can even be chained (I have still to find the use for that, though):
class DerivedDerived : public Derived
{
public :
typedef Derived super; // note that it could be hidden in
// protected/private section, instead
// Etc.
} ;
void DerivedDerived::bar()
{
super::bar() ; // will call Derived::bar
super::super::bar ; // will call Base::bar
// ... And then, do something else
}
Anyway, I find the use of "typedef super" very useful, for example, when Base is either verbose and/or templated.
The fact is that super is implemented in Java, as well as in C# (where it is called "base", unless I'm wrong). But C++ lacks this keyword.
So, my questions:
is this use of typedef super common/rare/never seen in the code you work with?
is this use of typedef super Ok (i.e. do you see strong or not so strong reasons to not use it)?
should "super" be a good thing, should it be somewhat standardized in C++, or is this use through a typedef enough already?
Edit: Roddy mentionned the fact the typedef should be private. This would mean any derived class would not be able to use it without redeclaring it. But I guess it would also prevent the super::super chaining (but who's gonna cry for that?).
Edit 2: Now, some months after massively using "super", I wholeheartedly agree with Roddy's viewpoint: "super" should be private.
Bjarne Stroustrup mentions in Design and Evolution of C++ that super as a keyword was considered by the ISO C++ Standards committee the first time C++ was standardized.
Dag Bruck proposed this extension, calling the base class "inherited." The proposal mentioned the multiple inheritance issue, and would have flagged ambiguous uses. Even Stroustrup was convinced.
After discussion, Dag Bruck (yes, the same person making the proposal) wrote that the proposal was implementable, technically sound, and free of major flaws, and handled multiple inheritance. On the other hand, there wasn't enough bang for the buck, and the committee should handle a thornier problem.
Michael Tiemann arrived late, and then showed that a typedef'ed super would work just fine, using the same technique that was asked about in this post.
So, no, this will probably never get standardized.
If you don't have a copy, Design and Evolution is well worth the cover price. Used copies can be had for about $10.
I've always used "inherited" rather than super. (Probably due to a Delphi background), and I always make it private, to avoid the problem when the 'inherited' is erroneously omitted from a class but a subclass tries to use it.
class MyClass : public MyBase
{
private: // Prevents erroneous use by other classes.
typedef MyBase inherited;
...
My standard 'code template' for creating new classes includes the typedef, so I have little opportunity to accidentally omit it.
I don't think the chained "super::super" suggestion is a good idea- If you're doing that, you're probably tied in very hard to a particular hierarchy, and changing it will likely break stuff badly.
One problem with this is that if you forget to (re-)define super for derived classes, then any call to super::something will compile fine but will probably not call the desired function.
For example:
class Base
{
public: virtual void foo() { ... }
};
class Derived: public Base
{
public:
typedef Base super;
virtual void foo()
{
super::foo(); // call superclass implementation
// do other stuff
...
}
};
class DerivedAgain: public Derived
{
public:
virtual void foo()
{
// Call superclass function
super::foo(); // oops, calls Base::foo() rather than Derived::foo()
...
}
};
(As pointed out by Martin York in the comments to this answer, this problem can be eliminated by making the typedef private rather than public or protected.)
FWIW Microsoft has added an extension for __super in their compiler.
I don't recall seeing this before, but at first glance I like it. As Ferruccio notes, it doesn't work well in the face of MI, but MI is more the exception than the rule and there's nothing that says something needs to be usable everywhere to be useful.
Super (or inherited) is Very Good Thing because if you need to stick another inheritance layer in between Base and Derived, you only have to change two things: 1. the "class Base: foo" and 2. the typedef
If I recall correctly, the C++ Standards committee was considering adding a keyword for this... until Michael Tiemann pointed out that this typedef trick works.
As for multiple inheritance, since it's under programmer control you can do whatever you want: maybe super1 and super2, or whatever.
I just found an alternate workaround. I have a big problem with the typedef approach which bit me today:
The typedef requires an exact copy of the class name. If someone changes the class name but doesn't change the typedef then you will run into problems.
So I came up with a better solution using a very simple template.
template <class C>
struct MakeAlias : C
{
typedef C BaseAlias;
};
So now, instead of
class Derived : public Base
{
private:
typedef Base Super;
};
you have
class Derived : public MakeAlias<Base>
{
// Can refer to Base as BaseAlias here
};
In this case, BaseAlias is not private and I've tried to guard against careless usage by selecting an type name that should alert other developers.
I've seen this idiom employed in many code bases and I'm pretty sure I've even seen it somewhere in Boost's libraries. However, as far as I remember the most common name is base (or Base) instead of super.
This idiom is especially useful if working with class templates. As an example, consider the following class (from a real project):
template <typename TText, typename TSpec>
class Finder<Index<TText, PizzaChili<TSpec>>, MyFinderType>
: public Finder<Index<TText, MyFinderImpl<TSpec>>, Default>
{
using TBase = Finder<Index<TText, MyFinderImpl<TSpec>>, Default>;
// …
}
The inheritance chain uses type arguments to achieve compile-time polymorphism. Unfortunately, the nesting level of these templates gets quite high. Therefore, meaningful abbreviations for the full type names are crucial for readability and maintainability.
I've quite often seen it used, sometimes as super_t, when the base is a complex template type (boost::iterator_adaptor does this, for example)
is this use of typedef super common/rare/never seen in the code you work with?
I have never seen this particular pattern in the C++ code I work with, but that doesn't mean it's not out there.
is this use of typedef super Ok (i.e. do you see strong or not so strong reasons to not use it)?
It doesn't allow for multiple inheritance (cleanly, anyway).
should "super" be a good thing, should it be somewhat standardized in C++, or is this use through a typedef enough already?
For the above cited reason (multiple inheritance), no. The reason why you see "super" in the other languages you listed is that they only support single inheritance, so there is no confusion as to what "super" is referring to. Granted, in those languages it IS useful but it doesn't really have a place in the C++ data model.
Oh, and FYI: C++/CLI supports this concept in the form of the "__super" keyword. Please note, though, that C++/CLI doesn't support multiple inheritance either.
One additional reason to use a typedef for the superclass is when you are using complex templates in the object's inheritance.
For instance:
template <typename T, size_t C, typename U>
class A
{ ... };
template <typename T>
class B : public A<T,99,T>
{ ... };
In class B it would be ideal to have a typedef for A otherwise you would be stuck repeating it everywhere you wanted to reference A's members.
In these cases it can work with multiple inheritance too, but you wouldn't have a typedef named 'super', it would be called 'base_A_t' or something like that.
--jeffk++
After migrating from Turbo Pascal to C++ back in the day, I used to do this in order to have an equivalent for the Turbo Pascal "inherited" keyword, which works the same way. However, after programming in C++ for a few years I stopped doing it. I found I just didn't need it very much.
I was trying to solve this exact same problem; I threw around a few ideas, such as using variadic templates and pack expansion to allow for an arbitrary number of parents, but I realized that would result in an implementation like 'super0' and 'super1'. I trashed it because that would be barely more useful than not having it to begin with.
My Solution involves a helper class PrimaryParent and is implemented as so:
template<typename BaseClass>
class PrimaryParent : virtual public BaseClass
{
protected:
using super = BaseClass;
public:
template<typename ...ArgTypes>
PrimaryParent<BaseClass>(ArgTypes... args) : BaseClass(args...){}
}
Then which ever class you want to use would be declared as such:
class MyObject : public PrimaryParent<SomeBaseClass>
{
public:
MyObject() : PrimaryParent<SomeBaseClass>(SomeParams) {}
}
To avoid the need to use virtual inheritance in PrimaryParenton BaseClass, a constructor taking a variable number of arguments is used to allow construction of BaseClass.
The reason behind the public inheritance of BaseClass into PrimaryParent is to let MyObject have full control over over the inheritance of BaseClass despite having a helper class between them.
This does mean that every class you want to have super must use the PrimaryParent helper class, and each child may only inherit from one class using PrimaryParent (hence the name).
Another restriction for this method, is MyObject can inherit only one class which inherits from PrimaryParent, and that one must be inherited using PrimaryParent. Here is what I mean:
class SomeOtherBase : public PrimaryParent<Ancestor>{}
class MixinClass {}
//Good
class BaseClass : public PrimaryParent<SomeOtherBase>, public MixinClass
{}
//Not Good (now 'super' is ambiguous)
class MyObject : public PrimaryParent<BaseClass>, public SomeOtherBase{}
//Also Not Good ('super' is again ambiguous)
class MyObject : public PrimaryParent<BaseClass>, public PrimaryParent<SomeOtherBase>{}
Before you discard this as an option because of the seeming number of restrictions and the fact there is a middle-man class between every inheritance, these things are not bad.
Multiple inheritance is a strong tool, but in most circumstances, there will be only one primary parent, and if there are other parents, they likely will be Mixin classes, or classes which don't inherit from PrimaryParent anyways. If multiple inheritance is still necessary (though many situations would benefit to use composition to define an object instead of inheritance), than just explicitly define super in that class and don't inherit from PrimaryParent.
The idea of having to define super in every class is not very appealing to me, using PrimaryParent allows for super, clearly an inheritence based alias, to stay in the class definition line instead of the class body where the data should go.
That might just be me though.
Of course every situation is different, but consider these things i have said when deciding which option to use.
I don't know whether it's rare or not, but I've certainly done the same thing.
As has been pointed out, the difficulty with making this part of the language itself is when a class makes use of multiple inheritance.
I use this from time to time. Just when I find myself typing out the base class type a couple of times, I'll replace it with a typedef similar to yours.
I think it can be a good use. As you say, if your base class is a template it can save typing. Also, template classes may take arguments that act as policies for how the template should work. You're free to change the base type without having to fix up all your references to it as long as the interface of the base remains compatible.
I think the use through the typedef is enough already. I can't see how it would be built into the language anyway because multiple inheritence means there can be many base classes, so you can typedef it as you see fit for the class you logically feel is the most important base class.
I use the __super keyword. But it's Microsoft specific:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/94dw1w7x.aspx
I won't say much except present code with comments that demonstrates that super doesn't mean calling base!
super != base.
In short, what is "super" supposed to mean anyway? and then what is "base" supposed to mean?
super means, calling the last implementor of a method (not base method)
base means, choosing which class is default base in multiple inheritance.
This 2 rules apply to in class typedefs.
Consider library implementor and library user, who is super and who is base?
for more info here is working code for copy paste into your IDE:
#include <iostream>
// Library defiens 4 classes in typical library class hierarchy
class Abstract
{
public:
virtual void f() = 0;
};
class LibraryBase1 :
virtual public Abstract
{
public:
void f() override
{
std::cout << "Base1" << std::endl;
}
};
class LibraryBase2 :
virtual public Abstract
{
public:
void f() override
{
std::cout << "Base2" << std::endl;
}
};
class LibraryDerivate :
public LibraryBase1,
public LibraryBase2
{
// base is meaningfull only for this class,
// this class decides who is my base in multiple inheritance
private:
using base = LibraryBase1;
protected:
// this is super! base is not super but base!
using super = LibraryDerivate;
public:
void f() override
{
std::cout << "I'm super not my Base" << std::endl;
std::cout << "Calling my *default* base: " << std::endl;
base::f();
}
};
// Library user
struct UserBase :
public LibraryDerivate
{
protected:
// NOTE: If user overrides f() he must update who is super, in one class before base!
using super = UserBase; // this typedef is needed only so that most derived version
// is called, which calls next super in hierarchy.
// it's not needed here, just saying how to chain "super" calls if needed
// NOTE: User can't call base, base is a concept private to each class, super is not.
private:
using base = LibraryDerivate; // example of typedefing base.
};
struct UserDerived :
public UserBase
{
// NOTE: to typedef who is super here we would need to specify full name
// when calling super method, but in this sample is it's not needed.
// Good super is called, example of good super is last implementor of f()
// example of bad super is calling base (but which base??)
void f() override
{
super::f();
}
};
int main()
{
UserDerived derived;
// derived calls super implementation because that's what
// "super" is supposed to mean! super != base
derived.f();
// Yes it work with polymorphism!
Abstract* pUser = new LibraryDerivate;
pUser->f();
Abstract* pUserBase = new UserBase;
pUserBase->f();
}
Another important point here is this:
polymorphic call: calls downward
super call: calls upwards
inside main() we use polymorphic call downards that super calls upwards, not really useful in real life, but it demonstrates the difference.
The simple answer why c++ doesn't support "super" keyword is.
DDD(Deadly Diamond of Death) problem.
in multiple inheritance. Compiler will confuse which is superclass.
So which superclass is "D"'s superclass?? "Both" cannot be solution because "super" keyword is pointer.
This is a method I use which uses macros instead of a typedef. I know that this is not the C++ way of doing things but it can be convenient when chaining iterators together through inheritance when only the base class furthest down the hierarchy is acting upon an inherited offset.
For example:
// some header.h
#define CLASS some_iterator
#define SUPER_CLASS some_const_iterator
#define SUPER static_cast<SUPER_CLASS&>(*this)
template<typename T>
class CLASS : SUPER_CLASS {
typedef CLASS<T> class_type;
class_type& operator++();
};
template<typename T>
typename CLASS<T>::class_type CLASS<T>::operator++(
int)
{
class_type copy = *this;
// Macro
++SUPER;
// vs
// Typedef
// super::operator++();
return copy;
}
#undef CLASS
#undef SUPER_CLASS
#undef SUPER
The generic setup I use makes it very easy to read and copy/paste between the inheritance tree which have duplicate code but must be overridden because the return type has to match the current class.
One could use a lower-case super to replicate the behavior seen in Java but my coding style is to use all upper-case letters for macros.