getter inheritance issue with 2 classes - c++

I've 2 classes (voluntary as simple as possible) and I'm working with Qt on Mac OS X:
//Class A
class A
{
protected:
int getX(){return _x;};
private:
int _x;
};
//Class B
class B : A
{
void method(){qDebug() << this->getX();}
};
And the compiler throws:
error: 'getX' is a private member of 'A'
Am I missing something?
I've tried with:
qDebug() << this->A::getX();
Which doesn't work either!

When you don't specify the type of inheritance the default is taken as private.
In private inheritance,
Base Class' public members are private.
From standard docs, 11.2.2
In the absence of an access-specifier for a base class, public is
assumed when the derived class is defined with the class-key struct
and private is assumed when the class is defined with the class-key
class.

there are three types of inheritance:
public
protected
private
the dafult mode for class is private, and for struct it is public:
In the absence of an access-specifier for a base class, public is
assumed when the derived class is defined with the class-key struct
and private is assumed when the class is defined with the class-key
class.
[From C++ standard, 11.2.2]
So, when you say:
class B: A
this is private inheritance and thus all public and protected members of a base class will be inherited as private. What you need is
class B: public A
or
class B: protected A
Private and protected inheritance is used more often where defining implementation details. Private bases are most useful when defining a class by restricting the interface to a base so that stronger guarantees can be provided. For example, Vec adds
range checking to its private base vector (§3.7.1) and the list of pointers template adds type checking to its list<void*> base -> see Stroustrup ("C++..." §13.5).
Example:
//Class A
class A
{
public:
int getX(){return _x;};
protected:
int getX2(){return _x;}
private:
int _x;
};
//Class B
class B : protected A //A::getX and A::getX2 are not visible in B interface,
^^^^^^^^^ // but still we can use it inside B class: inherited
// members are always there, the inheritance mode
// affects only how they are accessible outside the class
// in particular for a children
{
public:
int method(){ return this->getX();}
int method2(){ return this->getX2();}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
B b=B();
printf("b.getX(): %d",b.method()); // OK
printf("b.getX(): %d",b.method2()); // OK
return 0;
}
Further effects to inheritance
Additionally, when you declare class as
class B: A
being the same as class B: private A further inheritance becomes unavailable: only class that derives from A and its friends can use A public and protected members. Only friends and members of B can convert B* to A*.
If A is a protected base then its public and protected members can be used by class B and its friends and by classes derived from B and their friends. Only friends and members of B and friends and members of class derived from B can convert B* to A*.
If A is a public base finally, then its public members can be used by any class and its protected members can be used by derived classes and their friends and by classes derived from B and their friends. Any function can convert B* to A*.
Note also that you cannot cast constness with dynamic_cast or static_cast, it is said that they both respect constness. They both respect access controls also (it is not possible to cast to a private base [because only derived class methods might do Derived* -> Base* and methods of classes being friends to this {friend declaration is in Base}])
more in Stroustrup ("C++", 15.3.2)

When you inherit a class from another, the mode of inheritance should be mentioned. So, you have to declare as
class B: public A
Then you won't have the error

Try this:
//Class A
class A
{
protected:
int getX(){return _x};
private:
int _x;
};
//Class B
class B : public A
{
void method(){qDebug() << this->getX();}
};
You forgot the keyword public, you don't use this as a pointer and you forgot the ; at the end of the classes.

Your code should be as follows:
class A {
protected:
int getX() { return _x; }
private:
int _x;
};
//Class B
class B : public A {
void method() { this->getX(); }
};
They were many errors:
class B: public A;
this->getX();
commas after class declarations

You forgot ; in your getter return
int getX() { return _x; };

Related

C++ inheritance a defined function from an abstract class [duplicate]

What is the difference between public, private, and protected inheritance in C++?
All of the questions I've found on SO deal with specific cases.
class A
{
public:
int x;
protected:
int y;
private:
int z;
};
class B : public A
{
// x is public
// y is protected
// z is not accessible from B
};
class C : protected A
{
// x is protected
// y is protected
// z is not accessible from C
};
class D : private A // 'private' is default for classes
{
// x is private
// y is private
// z is not accessible from D
};
IMPORTANT NOTE: Classes B, C and D all contain the variables x, y and z. It is just question of access.
About usage of protected and private inheritance you could read here.
To answer that question, I'd like to describe member's accessors first in my own words. If you already know this, skip to the heading "next:".
There are three accessors that I'm aware of: public, protected and private.
Let:
class Base {
public:
int publicMember;
protected:
int protectedMember;
private:
int privateMember;
};
Everything that is aware of Base is also aware that Base contains publicMember.
Only the children (and their children) are aware that Base contains protectedMember.
No one but Base is aware of privateMember.
By "is aware of", I mean "acknowledge the existence of, and thus be able to access".
next:
The same happens with public, private and protected inheritance. Let's consider a class Base and a class Child that inherits from Base.
If the inheritance is public, everything that is aware of Base and Child is also aware that Child inherits from Base.
If the inheritance is protected, only Child, and its children, are aware that they inherit from Base.
If the inheritance is private, no one other than Child is aware of the inheritance.
Limiting the visibility of inheritance will make code not able to see that some class inherits another class: Implicit conversions from the derived to the base won't work, and static_cast from the base to the derived won't work either.
Only members/friends of a class can see private inheritance, and only members/friends and derived classes can see protected inheritance.
public inheritance
IS-A inheritance. A button is-a window, and anywhere where a window is needed, a button can be passed too.
class button : public window { };
protected inheritance
Protected implemented-in-terms-of. Rarely useful. Used in boost::compressed_pair to derive from empty classes and save memory using empty base class optimization (example below doesn't use template to keep being at the point):
struct empty_pair_impl : protected empty_class_1
{ non_empty_class_2 second; };
struct pair : private empty_pair_impl {
non_empty_class_2 &second() {
return this->second;
}
empty_class_1 &first() {
return *this; // notice we return *this!
}
};
private inheritance
Implemented-in-terms-of. The usage of the base class is only for implementing the derived class. Useful with traits and if size matters (empty traits that only contain functions will make use of the empty base class optimization). Often containment is the better solution, though. The size for strings is critical, so it's an often seen usage here
template<typename StorageModel>
struct string : private StorageModel {
public:
void realloc() {
// uses inherited function
StorageModel::realloc();
}
};
public member
Aggregate
class pair {
public:
First first;
Second second;
};
Accessors
class window {
public:
int getWidth() const;
};
protected member
Providing enhanced access for derived classes
class stack {
protected:
vector<element> c;
};
class window {
protected:
void registerClass(window_descriptor w);
};
private member
Keep implementation details
class window {
private:
int width;
};
Note that C-style casts purposely allows casting a derived class to a protected or private base class in a defined and safe manner and to cast into the other direction too. This should be avoided at all costs, because it can make code dependent on implementation details - but if necessary, you can make use of this technique.
These three keywords are also used in a completely different context to specify the visibility inheritance model.
This table gathers all of the possible combinations of the component declaration and inheritance model presenting the resulting access to the components when the subclass is completely defined.
The table above is interpreted in the following way (take a look at the first row):
if a component is declared as public and its class is inherited as public the resulting access is public.
An example:
class Super {
public: int p;
private: int q;
protected: int r;
};
class Sub : private Super {};
class Subsub : public Sub {};
The resulting access for variables p, q, r in class Subsub is none.
Another example:
class Super {
private: int x;
protected: int y;
public: int z;
};
class Sub : protected Super {};
The resulting access for variables y, z in class Sub is protected and for variable x is none.
A more detailed example:
class Super {
private:
int storage;
public:
void put(int val) { storage = val; }
int get(void) { return storage; }
};
int main(void) {
Super object;
object.put(100);
object.put(object.get());
cout << object.get() << endl;
return 0;
}
Now lets define a subclass:
class Sub : Super { };
int main(void) {
Sub object;
object.put(100);
object.put(object.get());
cout << object.get() << endl;
return 0;
}
The defined class named Sub which is a subclass of class named Super or that Sub class is derived from the Super class.
The Sub class introduces neither new variables nor new functions. Does it mean that any object of the Sub class inherits all the traits after the Super class being in fact a copy of a Super class’ objects?
No. It doesn’t.
If we compile the following code, we will get nothing but compilation errors saying that put and get methods are inaccessible. Why?
When we omit the visibility specifier, the compiler assumes that we are going to apply the so-called private inheritance. It means that all public superclass components turn into private access, private superclass components won't be accessible at all. It consequently means that you are not allowed to use the latter inside the subclass.
We have to inform the compiler that we want to preserve the previously used access policy.
class Sub : public Super { };
Don’t be misled: it doesn’t mean that private components of the Super
class (like the storage variable) will turn into public ones in a
somewhat magical way. Private components will remain private, public
will remain public.
Objects of the Sub class may do "almost" the same things as their older siblings created from the Super class. "Almost" because the fact of being a subclass also means that the class lost access to the private components of the superclass. We cannot write a member function of the Sub class which would be able to directly manipulate the storage variable.
This is a very serious restriction. Is there any workaround?
Yes.
The third access level is called protected. The keyword protected means that the component marked with it behaves like a public one when used by any of the subclasses and looks like a private one to the rest of the world. -- This is true only for the publicly inherited classes (like the Super class in our example) --
class Super {
protected:
int storage;
public:
void put(int val) { storage = val; }
int get(void) { return storage; }
};
class Sub : public Super {
public:
void print(void) {cout << "storage = " << storage;}
};
int main(void) {
Sub object;
object.put(100);
object.put(object.get() + 1);
object.print();
return 0;
}
As you see in the example code we a new functionality to the Sub class and it does one important thing: it accesses the storage variable from the Super class.
It wouldn’t be possible if the variable was declared as private.
In the main function scope the variable remains hidden anyway so if you write anything like:
object.storage = 0;
The compiler will inform you that it is an error: 'int Super::storage' is protected.
Finally, the last program will produce the following output:
storage = 101
It has to do with how the public members of the base class are exposed from the derived class.
public -> base class's public members will be public (usually the default)
protected -> base class's public members will be protected
private -> base class's public members will be private
As litb points out, public inheritance is traditional inheritance that you'll see in most programming languages. That is it models an "IS-A" relationship. Private inheritance, something AFAIK peculiar to C++, is an "IMPLEMENTED IN TERMS OF" relationship. That is you want to use the public interface in the derived class, but don't want the user of the derived class to have access to that interface. Many argue that in this case you should aggregate the base class, that is instead of having the base class as a private base, make in a member of derived in order to reuse base class's functionality.
Member in base class : Private Protected Public
Inheritance type : Object inherited as:
Private : Inaccessible Private Private
Protected : Inaccessible Protected Protected
Public : Inaccessible Protected Public
1) Public Inheritance:
a. Private members of Base class are not accessible in Derived class.
b. Protected members of Base class remain protected in Derived class.
c. Public members of Base class remain public in Derived class.
So, other classes can use public members of Base class through Derived class object.
2) Protected Inheritance:
a. Private members of Base class are not accessible in Derived class.
b. Protected members of Base class remain protected in Derived class.
c. Public members of Base class too become protected members of Derived class.
So, other classes can't use public members of Base class through Derived class object; but they are available to subclass of Derived.
3) Private Inheritance:
a. Private members of Base class are not accessible in Derived class.
b. Protected & public members of Base class become private members of Derived class.
So, no members of Base class can be accessed by other classes through Derived class object as they are private in Derived class. So, even subclass of Derived
class can't access them.
Public inheritance models an IS-A relationship. With
class B {};
class D : public B {};
every D is a B.
Private inheritance models an IS-IMPLEMENTED-USING relationship (or whatever that's called). With
class B {};
class D : private B {};
a D is not a B, but every D uses its B in its implementation. Private inheritance can always be eliminated by using containment instead:
class B {};
class D {
private:
B b_;
};
This D, too, can be implemented using B, in this case using its b_. Containment is a less tight coupling between types than inheritance, so in general it should be preferred. Sometimes using containment instead of private inheritance is not as convenient as private inheritance. Often that's a lame excuse for being lazy.
I don't think anyone knows what protected inheritance models. At least I haven't seen any convincing explanation yet.
If you inherit publicly from another class, everybody knows you are inheriting and you can be used polymorphically by anyone through a base class pointer.
If you inherit protectedly only your children classes will be able to use you polymorphically.
If you inherit privately only yourself will be able to execute parent class methods.
Which basically symbolizes the knowledge the rest of the classes have about your relationship with your parent class
Accessors | Base Class | Derived Class | World
—————————————+————————————+———————————————+———————
public | y | y | y
—————————————+————————————+———————————————+———————
protected | y | y | n
—————————————+————————————+———————————————+———————
private | | |
or | y | n | n
no accessor | | |
y: accessible
n: not accessible
Based on this example for java... I think a little table worth a thousand words :)
Protected data members can be accessed by any classes that inherit from your class. Private data members, however, cannot. Let's say we have the following:
class MyClass {
private:
int myPrivateMember; // lol
protected:
int myProtectedMember;
};
From within your extension to this class, referencing this.myPrivateMember won't work. However, this.myProtectedMember will. The value is still encapsulated, so if we have an instantiation of this class called myObj, then myObj.myProtectedMember won't work, so it is similar in function to a private data member.
Summary:
Private: no one can see it except for within the class
Protected: Private + derived classes can see it
Public: the world can see it
When inheriting, you can (in some languages) change the protection type of a data member in certain direction, e.g. from protected to public.
Private:
The private members of a base class can only be accessed by members of that base class .
Public:
The public members of a base class can be accessed by members of that base class, members of its derived class as well as the members which are outside the base class and derived class.
Protected:
The protected members of a base class can be accessed by members of base class as well as members of its derived class.
In short:
private: base
protected: base + derived
public: base + derived + any other member
I have tried explaining inheritance using a picture below.
The main gist is that the private members of parent class are never directly accessible from derived/child class but you can use parent class's member function to access the private members of parent class.
Private variables are always present in derived class but it cannot be accessed by derived class. Its like its their but you cannot see with your own eyes but if you ask someone form the parent class then he can describe it to you.
I found an easy answer and so thought of posting it for my future reference too.
Its from the links http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial/115-inheritance-and-access-specifiers/
class Base
{
public:
int m_nPublic; // can be accessed by anybody
private:
int m_nPrivate; // can only be accessed by Base member functions (but not derived classes)
protected:
int m_nProtected; // can be accessed by Base member functions, or derived classes.
};
class Derived: public Base
{
public:
Derived()
{
// Derived's access to Base members is not influenced by the type of inheritance used,
// so the following is always true:
m_nPublic = 1; // allowed: can access public base members from derived class
m_nPrivate = 2; // not allowed: can not access private base members from derived class
m_nProtected = 3; // allowed: can access protected base members from derived class
}
};
int main()
{
Base cBase;
cBase.m_nPublic = 1; // allowed: can access public members from outside class
cBase.m_nPrivate = 2; // not allowed: can not access private members from outside class
cBase.m_nProtected = 3; // not allowed: can not access protected members from outside class
}
It's essentially the access protection of the public and protected members of the base class in the derived class. With public inheritance, the derived class can see public and protected members of the base. With private inheritance, it can't. With protected, the derived class and any classes derived from that can see them.

Inheriting from public vs private class C++ [duplicate]

What is the difference between public, private, and protected inheritance in C++?
All of the questions I've found on SO deal with specific cases.
class A
{
public:
int x;
protected:
int y;
private:
int z;
};
class B : public A
{
// x is public
// y is protected
// z is not accessible from B
};
class C : protected A
{
// x is protected
// y is protected
// z is not accessible from C
};
class D : private A // 'private' is default for classes
{
// x is private
// y is private
// z is not accessible from D
};
IMPORTANT NOTE: Classes B, C and D all contain the variables x, y and z. It is just question of access.
About usage of protected and private inheritance you could read here.
To answer that question, I'd like to describe member's accessors first in my own words. If you already know this, skip to the heading "next:".
There are three accessors that I'm aware of: public, protected and private.
Let:
class Base {
public:
int publicMember;
protected:
int protectedMember;
private:
int privateMember;
};
Everything that is aware of Base is also aware that Base contains publicMember.
Only the children (and their children) are aware that Base contains protectedMember.
No one but Base is aware of privateMember.
By "is aware of", I mean "acknowledge the existence of, and thus be able to access".
next:
The same happens with public, private and protected inheritance. Let's consider a class Base and a class Child that inherits from Base.
If the inheritance is public, everything that is aware of Base and Child is also aware that Child inherits from Base.
If the inheritance is protected, only Child, and its children, are aware that they inherit from Base.
If the inheritance is private, no one other than Child is aware of the inheritance.
Limiting the visibility of inheritance will make code not able to see that some class inherits another class: Implicit conversions from the derived to the base won't work, and static_cast from the base to the derived won't work either.
Only members/friends of a class can see private inheritance, and only members/friends and derived classes can see protected inheritance.
public inheritance
IS-A inheritance. A button is-a window, and anywhere where a window is needed, a button can be passed too.
class button : public window { };
protected inheritance
Protected implemented-in-terms-of. Rarely useful. Used in boost::compressed_pair to derive from empty classes and save memory using empty base class optimization (example below doesn't use template to keep being at the point):
struct empty_pair_impl : protected empty_class_1
{ non_empty_class_2 second; };
struct pair : private empty_pair_impl {
non_empty_class_2 &second() {
return this->second;
}
empty_class_1 &first() {
return *this; // notice we return *this!
}
};
private inheritance
Implemented-in-terms-of. The usage of the base class is only for implementing the derived class. Useful with traits and if size matters (empty traits that only contain functions will make use of the empty base class optimization). Often containment is the better solution, though. The size for strings is critical, so it's an often seen usage here
template<typename StorageModel>
struct string : private StorageModel {
public:
void realloc() {
// uses inherited function
StorageModel::realloc();
}
};
public member
Aggregate
class pair {
public:
First first;
Second second;
};
Accessors
class window {
public:
int getWidth() const;
};
protected member
Providing enhanced access for derived classes
class stack {
protected:
vector<element> c;
};
class window {
protected:
void registerClass(window_descriptor w);
};
private member
Keep implementation details
class window {
private:
int width;
};
Note that C-style casts purposely allows casting a derived class to a protected or private base class in a defined and safe manner and to cast into the other direction too. This should be avoided at all costs, because it can make code dependent on implementation details - but if necessary, you can make use of this technique.
These three keywords are also used in a completely different context to specify the visibility inheritance model.
This table gathers all of the possible combinations of the component declaration and inheritance model presenting the resulting access to the components when the subclass is completely defined.
The table above is interpreted in the following way (take a look at the first row):
if a component is declared as public and its class is inherited as public the resulting access is public.
An example:
class Super {
public: int p;
private: int q;
protected: int r;
};
class Sub : private Super {};
class Subsub : public Sub {};
The resulting access for variables p, q, r in class Subsub is none.
Another example:
class Super {
private: int x;
protected: int y;
public: int z;
};
class Sub : protected Super {};
The resulting access for variables y, z in class Sub is protected and for variable x is none.
A more detailed example:
class Super {
private:
int storage;
public:
void put(int val) { storage = val; }
int get(void) { return storage; }
};
int main(void) {
Super object;
object.put(100);
object.put(object.get());
cout << object.get() << endl;
return 0;
}
Now lets define a subclass:
class Sub : Super { };
int main(void) {
Sub object;
object.put(100);
object.put(object.get());
cout << object.get() << endl;
return 0;
}
The defined class named Sub which is a subclass of class named Super or that Sub class is derived from the Super class.
The Sub class introduces neither new variables nor new functions. Does it mean that any object of the Sub class inherits all the traits after the Super class being in fact a copy of a Super class’ objects?
No. It doesn’t.
If we compile the following code, we will get nothing but compilation errors saying that put and get methods are inaccessible. Why?
When we omit the visibility specifier, the compiler assumes that we are going to apply the so-called private inheritance. It means that all public superclass components turn into private access, private superclass components won't be accessible at all. It consequently means that you are not allowed to use the latter inside the subclass.
We have to inform the compiler that we want to preserve the previously used access policy.
class Sub : public Super { };
Don’t be misled: it doesn’t mean that private components of the Super
class (like the storage variable) will turn into public ones in a
somewhat magical way. Private components will remain private, public
will remain public.
Objects of the Sub class may do "almost" the same things as their older siblings created from the Super class. "Almost" because the fact of being a subclass also means that the class lost access to the private components of the superclass. We cannot write a member function of the Sub class which would be able to directly manipulate the storage variable.
This is a very serious restriction. Is there any workaround?
Yes.
The third access level is called protected. The keyword protected means that the component marked with it behaves like a public one when used by any of the subclasses and looks like a private one to the rest of the world. -- This is true only for the publicly inherited classes (like the Super class in our example) --
class Super {
protected:
int storage;
public:
void put(int val) { storage = val; }
int get(void) { return storage; }
};
class Sub : public Super {
public:
void print(void) {cout << "storage = " << storage;}
};
int main(void) {
Sub object;
object.put(100);
object.put(object.get() + 1);
object.print();
return 0;
}
As you see in the example code we a new functionality to the Sub class and it does one important thing: it accesses the storage variable from the Super class.
It wouldn’t be possible if the variable was declared as private.
In the main function scope the variable remains hidden anyway so if you write anything like:
object.storage = 0;
The compiler will inform you that it is an error: 'int Super::storage' is protected.
Finally, the last program will produce the following output:
storage = 101
It has to do with how the public members of the base class are exposed from the derived class.
public -> base class's public members will be public (usually the default)
protected -> base class's public members will be protected
private -> base class's public members will be private
As litb points out, public inheritance is traditional inheritance that you'll see in most programming languages. That is it models an "IS-A" relationship. Private inheritance, something AFAIK peculiar to C++, is an "IMPLEMENTED IN TERMS OF" relationship. That is you want to use the public interface in the derived class, but don't want the user of the derived class to have access to that interface. Many argue that in this case you should aggregate the base class, that is instead of having the base class as a private base, make in a member of derived in order to reuse base class's functionality.
Member in base class : Private Protected Public
Inheritance type : Object inherited as:
Private : Inaccessible Private Private
Protected : Inaccessible Protected Protected
Public : Inaccessible Protected Public
1) Public Inheritance:
a. Private members of Base class are not accessible in Derived class.
b. Protected members of Base class remain protected in Derived class.
c. Public members of Base class remain public in Derived class.
So, other classes can use public members of Base class through Derived class object.
2) Protected Inheritance:
a. Private members of Base class are not accessible in Derived class.
b. Protected members of Base class remain protected in Derived class.
c. Public members of Base class too become protected members of Derived class.
So, other classes can't use public members of Base class through Derived class object; but they are available to subclass of Derived.
3) Private Inheritance:
a. Private members of Base class are not accessible in Derived class.
b. Protected & public members of Base class become private members of Derived class.
So, no members of Base class can be accessed by other classes through Derived class object as they are private in Derived class. So, even subclass of Derived
class can't access them.
Public inheritance models an IS-A relationship. With
class B {};
class D : public B {};
every D is a B.
Private inheritance models an IS-IMPLEMENTED-USING relationship (or whatever that's called). With
class B {};
class D : private B {};
a D is not a B, but every D uses its B in its implementation. Private inheritance can always be eliminated by using containment instead:
class B {};
class D {
private:
B b_;
};
This D, too, can be implemented using B, in this case using its b_. Containment is a less tight coupling between types than inheritance, so in general it should be preferred. Sometimes using containment instead of private inheritance is not as convenient as private inheritance. Often that's a lame excuse for being lazy.
I don't think anyone knows what protected inheritance models. At least I haven't seen any convincing explanation yet.
If you inherit publicly from another class, everybody knows you are inheriting and you can be used polymorphically by anyone through a base class pointer.
If you inherit protectedly only your children classes will be able to use you polymorphically.
If you inherit privately only yourself will be able to execute parent class methods.
Which basically symbolizes the knowledge the rest of the classes have about your relationship with your parent class
Accessors | Base Class | Derived Class | World
—————————————+————————————+———————————————+———————
public | y | y | y
—————————————+————————————+———————————————+———————
protected | y | y | n
—————————————+————————————+———————————————+———————
private | | |
or | y | n | n
no accessor | | |
y: accessible
n: not accessible
Based on this example for java... I think a little table worth a thousand words :)
Protected data members can be accessed by any classes that inherit from your class. Private data members, however, cannot. Let's say we have the following:
class MyClass {
private:
int myPrivateMember; // lol
protected:
int myProtectedMember;
};
From within your extension to this class, referencing this.myPrivateMember won't work. However, this.myProtectedMember will. The value is still encapsulated, so if we have an instantiation of this class called myObj, then myObj.myProtectedMember won't work, so it is similar in function to a private data member.
Summary:
Private: no one can see it except for within the class
Protected: Private + derived classes can see it
Public: the world can see it
When inheriting, you can (in some languages) change the protection type of a data member in certain direction, e.g. from protected to public.
Private:
The private members of a base class can only be accessed by members of that base class .
Public:
The public members of a base class can be accessed by members of that base class, members of its derived class as well as the members which are outside the base class and derived class.
Protected:
The protected members of a base class can be accessed by members of base class as well as members of its derived class.
In short:
private: base
protected: base + derived
public: base + derived + any other member
I have tried explaining inheritance using a picture below.
The main gist is that the private members of parent class are never directly accessible from derived/child class but you can use parent class's member function to access the private members of parent class.
Private variables are always present in derived class but it cannot be accessed by derived class. Its like its their but you cannot see with your own eyes but if you ask someone form the parent class then he can describe it to you.
I found an easy answer and so thought of posting it for my future reference too.
Its from the links http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial/115-inheritance-and-access-specifiers/
class Base
{
public:
int m_nPublic; // can be accessed by anybody
private:
int m_nPrivate; // can only be accessed by Base member functions (but not derived classes)
protected:
int m_nProtected; // can be accessed by Base member functions, or derived classes.
};
class Derived: public Base
{
public:
Derived()
{
// Derived's access to Base members is not influenced by the type of inheritance used,
// so the following is always true:
m_nPublic = 1; // allowed: can access public base members from derived class
m_nPrivate = 2; // not allowed: can not access private base members from derived class
m_nProtected = 3; // allowed: can access protected base members from derived class
}
};
int main()
{
Base cBase;
cBase.m_nPublic = 1; // allowed: can access public members from outside class
cBase.m_nPrivate = 2; // not allowed: can not access private members from outside class
cBase.m_nProtected = 3; // not allowed: can not access protected members from outside class
}
It's essentially the access protection of the public and protected members of the base class in the derived class. With public inheritance, the derived class can see public and protected members of the base. With private inheritance, it can't. With protected, the derived class and any classes derived from that can see them.

How can I access a private class member in other class in c++(inheritance) [duplicate]

What is the difference between public, private, and protected inheritance in C++?
All of the questions I've found on SO deal with specific cases.
class A
{
public:
int x;
protected:
int y;
private:
int z;
};
class B : public A
{
// x is public
// y is protected
// z is not accessible from B
};
class C : protected A
{
// x is protected
// y is protected
// z is not accessible from C
};
class D : private A // 'private' is default for classes
{
// x is private
// y is private
// z is not accessible from D
};
IMPORTANT NOTE: Classes B, C and D all contain the variables x, y and z. It is just question of access.
About usage of protected and private inheritance you could read here.
To answer that question, I'd like to describe member's accessors first in my own words. If you already know this, skip to the heading "next:".
There are three accessors that I'm aware of: public, protected and private.
Let:
class Base {
public:
int publicMember;
protected:
int protectedMember;
private:
int privateMember;
};
Everything that is aware of Base is also aware that Base contains publicMember.
Only the children (and their children) are aware that Base contains protectedMember.
No one but Base is aware of privateMember.
By "is aware of", I mean "acknowledge the existence of, and thus be able to access".
next:
The same happens with public, private and protected inheritance. Let's consider a class Base and a class Child that inherits from Base.
If the inheritance is public, everything that is aware of Base and Child is also aware that Child inherits from Base.
If the inheritance is protected, only Child, and its children, are aware that they inherit from Base.
If the inheritance is private, no one other than Child is aware of the inheritance.
Limiting the visibility of inheritance will make code not able to see that some class inherits another class: Implicit conversions from the derived to the base won't work, and static_cast from the base to the derived won't work either.
Only members/friends of a class can see private inheritance, and only members/friends and derived classes can see protected inheritance.
public inheritance
IS-A inheritance. A button is-a window, and anywhere where a window is needed, a button can be passed too.
class button : public window { };
protected inheritance
Protected implemented-in-terms-of. Rarely useful. Used in boost::compressed_pair to derive from empty classes and save memory using empty base class optimization (example below doesn't use template to keep being at the point):
struct empty_pair_impl : protected empty_class_1
{ non_empty_class_2 second; };
struct pair : private empty_pair_impl {
non_empty_class_2 &second() {
return this->second;
}
empty_class_1 &first() {
return *this; // notice we return *this!
}
};
private inheritance
Implemented-in-terms-of. The usage of the base class is only for implementing the derived class. Useful with traits and if size matters (empty traits that only contain functions will make use of the empty base class optimization). Often containment is the better solution, though. The size for strings is critical, so it's an often seen usage here
template<typename StorageModel>
struct string : private StorageModel {
public:
void realloc() {
// uses inherited function
StorageModel::realloc();
}
};
public member
Aggregate
class pair {
public:
First first;
Second second;
};
Accessors
class window {
public:
int getWidth() const;
};
protected member
Providing enhanced access for derived classes
class stack {
protected:
vector<element> c;
};
class window {
protected:
void registerClass(window_descriptor w);
};
private member
Keep implementation details
class window {
private:
int width;
};
Note that C-style casts purposely allows casting a derived class to a protected or private base class in a defined and safe manner and to cast into the other direction too. This should be avoided at all costs, because it can make code dependent on implementation details - but if necessary, you can make use of this technique.
These three keywords are also used in a completely different context to specify the visibility inheritance model.
This table gathers all of the possible combinations of the component declaration and inheritance model presenting the resulting access to the components when the subclass is completely defined.
The table above is interpreted in the following way (take a look at the first row):
if a component is declared as public and its class is inherited as public the resulting access is public.
An example:
class Super {
public: int p;
private: int q;
protected: int r;
};
class Sub : private Super {};
class Subsub : public Sub {};
The resulting access for variables p, q, r in class Subsub is none.
Another example:
class Super {
private: int x;
protected: int y;
public: int z;
};
class Sub : protected Super {};
The resulting access for variables y, z in class Sub is protected and for variable x is none.
A more detailed example:
class Super {
private:
int storage;
public:
void put(int val) { storage = val; }
int get(void) { return storage; }
};
int main(void) {
Super object;
object.put(100);
object.put(object.get());
cout << object.get() << endl;
return 0;
}
Now lets define a subclass:
class Sub : Super { };
int main(void) {
Sub object;
object.put(100);
object.put(object.get());
cout << object.get() << endl;
return 0;
}
The defined class named Sub which is a subclass of class named Super or that Sub class is derived from the Super class.
The Sub class introduces neither new variables nor new functions. Does it mean that any object of the Sub class inherits all the traits after the Super class being in fact a copy of a Super class’ objects?
No. It doesn’t.
If we compile the following code, we will get nothing but compilation errors saying that put and get methods are inaccessible. Why?
When we omit the visibility specifier, the compiler assumes that we are going to apply the so-called private inheritance. It means that all public superclass components turn into private access, private superclass components won't be accessible at all. It consequently means that you are not allowed to use the latter inside the subclass.
We have to inform the compiler that we want to preserve the previously used access policy.
class Sub : public Super { };
Don’t be misled: it doesn’t mean that private components of the Super
class (like the storage variable) will turn into public ones in a
somewhat magical way. Private components will remain private, public
will remain public.
Objects of the Sub class may do "almost" the same things as their older siblings created from the Super class. "Almost" because the fact of being a subclass also means that the class lost access to the private components of the superclass. We cannot write a member function of the Sub class which would be able to directly manipulate the storage variable.
This is a very serious restriction. Is there any workaround?
Yes.
The third access level is called protected. The keyword protected means that the component marked with it behaves like a public one when used by any of the subclasses and looks like a private one to the rest of the world. -- This is true only for the publicly inherited classes (like the Super class in our example) --
class Super {
protected:
int storage;
public:
void put(int val) { storage = val; }
int get(void) { return storage; }
};
class Sub : public Super {
public:
void print(void) {cout << "storage = " << storage;}
};
int main(void) {
Sub object;
object.put(100);
object.put(object.get() + 1);
object.print();
return 0;
}
As you see in the example code we a new functionality to the Sub class and it does one important thing: it accesses the storage variable from the Super class.
It wouldn’t be possible if the variable was declared as private.
In the main function scope the variable remains hidden anyway so if you write anything like:
object.storage = 0;
The compiler will inform you that it is an error: 'int Super::storage' is protected.
Finally, the last program will produce the following output:
storage = 101
It has to do with how the public members of the base class are exposed from the derived class.
public -> base class's public members will be public (usually the default)
protected -> base class's public members will be protected
private -> base class's public members will be private
As litb points out, public inheritance is traditional inheritance that you'll see in most programming languages. That is it models an "IS-A" relationship. Private inheritance, something AFAIK peculiar to C++, is an "IMPLEMENTED IN TERMS OF" relationship. That is you want to use the public interface in the derived class, but don't want the user of the derived class to have access to that interface. Many argue that in this case you should aggregate the base class, that is instead of having the base class as a private base, make in a member of derived in order to reuse base class's functionality.
Member in base class : Private Protected Public
Inheritance type : Object inherited as:
Private : Inaccessible Private Private
Protected : Inaccessible Protected Protected
Public : Inaccessible Protected Public
1) Public Inheritance:
a. Private members of Base class are not accessible in Derived class.
b. Protected members of Base class remain protected in Derived class.
c. Public members of Base class remain public in Derived class.
So, other classes can use public members of Base class through Derived class object.
2) Protected Inheritance:
a. Private members of Base class are not accessible in Derived class.
b. Protected members of Base class remain protected in Derived class.
c. Public members of Base class too become protected members of Derived class.
So, other classes can't use public members of Base class through Derived class object; but they are available to subclass of Derived.
3) Private Inheritance:
a. Private members of Base class are not accessible in Derived class.
b. Protected & public members of Base class become private members of Derived class.
So, no members of Base class can be accessed by other classes through Derived class object as they are private in Derived class. So, even subclass of Derived
class can't access them.
Public inheritance models an IS-A relationship. With
class B {};
class D : public B {};
every D is a B.
Private inheritance models an IS-IMPLEMENTED-USING relationship (or whatever that's called). With
class B {};
class D : private B {};
a D is not a B, but every D uses its B in its implementation. Private inheritance can always be eliminated by using containment instead:
class B {};
class D {
private:
B b_;
};
This D, too, can be implemented using B, in this case using its b_. Containment is a less tight coupling between types than inheritance, so in general it should be preferred. Sometimes using containment instead of private inheritance is not as convenient as private inheritance. Often that's a lame excuse for being lazy.
I don't think anyone knows what protected inheritance models. At least I haven't seen any convincing explanation yet.
If you inherit publicly from another class, everybody knows you are inheriting and you can be used polymorphically by anyone through a base class pointer.
If you inherit protectedly only your children classes will be able to use you polymorphically.
If you inherit privately only yourself will be able to execute parent class methods.
Which basically symbolizes the knowledge the rest of the classes have about your relationship with your parent class
Accessors | Base Class | Derived Class | World
—————————————+————————————+———————————————+———————
public | y | y | y
—————————————+————————————+———————————————+———————
protected | y | y | n
—————————————+————————————+———————————————+———————
private | | |
or | y | n | n
no accessor | | |
y: accessible
n: not accessible
Based on this example for java... I think a little table worth a thousand words :)
Protected data members can be accessed by any classes that inherit from your class. Private data members, however, cannot. Let's say we have the following:
class MyClass {
private:
int myPrivateMember; // lol
protected:
int myProtectedMember;
};
From within your extension to this class, referencing this.myPrivateMember won't work. However, this.myProtectedMember will. The value is still encapsulated, so if we have an instantiation of this class called myObj, then myObj.myProtectedMember won't work, so it is similar in function to a private data member.
Summary:
Private: no one can see it except for within the class
Protected: Private + derived classes can see it
Public: the world can see it
When inheriting, you can (in some languages) change the protection type of a data member in certain direction, e.g. from protected to public.
Private:
The private members of a base class can only be accessed by members of that base class .
Public:
The public members of a base class can be accessed by members of that base class, members of its derived class as well as the members which are outside the base class and derived class.
Protected:
The protected members of a base class can be accessed by members of base class as well as members of its derived class.
In short:
private: base
protected: base + derived
public: base + derived + any other member
I have tried explaining inheritance using a picture below.
The main gist is that the private members of parent class are never directly accessible from derived/child class but you can use parent class's member function to access the private members of parent class.
Private variables are always present in derived class but it cannot be accessed by derived class. Its like its their but you cannot see with your own eyes but if you ask someone form the parent class then he can describe it to you.
I found an easy answer and so thought of posting it for my future reference too.
Its from the links http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial/115-inheritance-and-access-specifiers/
class Base
{
public:
int m_nPublic; // can be accessed by anybody
private:
int m_nPrivate; // can only be accessed by Base member functions (but not derived classes)
protected:
int m_nProtected; // can be accessed by Base member functions, or derived classes.
};
class Derived: public Base
{
public:
Derived()
{
// Derived's access to Base members is not influenced by the type of inheritance used,
// so the following is always true:
m_nPublic = 1; // allowed: can access public base members from derived class
m_nPrivate = 2; // not allowed: can not access private base members from derived class
m_nProtected = 3; // allowed: can access protected base members from derived class
}
};
int main()
{
Base cBase;
cBase.m_nPublic = 1; // allowed: can access public members from outside class
cBase.m_nPrivate = 2; // not allowed: can not access private members from outside class
cBase.m_nProtected = 3; // not allowed: can not access protected members from outside class
}
It's essentially the access protection of the public and protected members of the base class in the derived class. With public inheritance, the derived class can see public and protected members of the base. With private inheritance, it can't. With protected, the derived class and any classes derived from that can see them.

Access private members of class that is friends with parent class

Consider the following
class Base;
class A {
int x;
friend class Base;
};
class Base {
protected:
A a_obj;
public:
Base(){
a_obj.x; // works
}
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
Derived(){
a_obj.x; // not accessible
}
};
I could make public getters and setters for x, or make the object public, but that is not preferrable. Assuming there is a bunch of derived classes, adding friend class Derived in class A would make the code too verbose. Is there a way to say "A is friends with class Base and all it's children"
Is there a way to say "A is friends with class Base and all it's children"
No.
What you can do is make the base a friend (as you did), and write a protected accessor in the base that the children can use to access the private member.
In short, c++ rule is that friendship is not inheritable.
To achieve what you need, you can add static protected method as accessor in a Base class.
But, if you really need to make it w/o accessors or getters
you can make it with reinterpret_cast, but it would be hack and its not recommended.
Is there a way to say "A is friends with class Base and all it's children"
No
You need to fix your design. Classes should not be granted access to members of all types derived from a base class. As per your code, I think you need to modify the private member of a class in the constructor of other class.
One possible solution is using parameterized constructor. You can call constructor of class A from classes Base and Derived.
class Base;
class A {
int x;
public:
A(int in): x(in)
{
}
};
class Base {
protected:
A a_obj;
public:
Base(int in): A(in)
{
}
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
Derived(): Base(5)
{
}
};

You can 'promote' access specification through inheritance, can you ever 'demote' access specification?

By 'promote' I mean make access more restrictive and by 'demote' I mean make less restrictive.
For example, when class B is derived from class A using : protected or : private then the public members of A get promoted, to protected and private, respectively.
Could some class C ever come in and derive itself from class B, while at the same time demoting the inherited members of class A back to their original access specifications?
If you're using protected derivation, then class C could indeed give access to the protected members, by creating an appropriate wrapper:
class A {
public:
void F();
};
class B : protected A { };
class C : public B {
public:
using B::F;
};
This also can be made to work with data members:
class A {
public:
int n;
};
class B : protected A { };
class C : public B {
public:
using B::n;
C() : n(this->B::n) { }
};
With private inheritance this is not directly possible, because C cannot itself access members in A.. However, if B is derived from A using private virtual inheritance, it becomes possible again:
class A {
public:
void F();
};
class B : private virtual A { };
class C : public B, public virtual A { };
int main() {
C x;
x.F();
return 0;
}
This works because with virtual inheritance, C can derive directly from the same instance of A as B, but with a different access specifier.
A using declaration can give access to public or protected members of protected base classes:
struct A {int x;};
struct B : protected A {};
struct C : B
{
using A::x; // publicly accessible
}
Obviously, private members and base classes aren't available to C, so you can't reduce the restrictions on them.
Of course not, what would be the point of having private or protected inheritance if I can just create another derived that class that blows away the intermediate class' access restrictions and makes everything public?
No.
Because, when class C derives class B; it doesn't know about the original access specifiers of class A. It just respects the access specifiers in class B.