I have the following code:
class Base
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
};
class BaseImpl : public virtual Base
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() {
// something
}
};
class BaseDerived: public virtual Base
{
public:
virtual void doSomething2() = 0;
};
class BaseDerivedImpl: public BaseImpl, public BaseDerived
{
public:
virtual void doSomething2(){
// sonething2
}
};
Then I have
Base* b = new BaseImpl();
b->doSomething(); // fatal error at this line (not in the method, but in the method invocation)
The problem is that it even does not go into the function.
Is it something wrong with using such hierarchy?
As OP ignores the comments, let me answer the question here:
Is it something wrong with using such hierarchy?
No, nothing is wrong. This is the standard way how to solve the 'dreaded diamond' issue (which isn't actually all that dreadful).
However, the diamond doesn't even come to play in this example:
Base* b = new BaseImpl();
BaseImpl is derived directly from Base so you have standard single inheritance. Your code behaves the same as if BaseDerived and BaseDerivedImpl were not defined at all. You can comment them out, and the app will still crash.
Then you call doSomething on this instance and it crashes. The implementation of doSomething is as follows:
// something
Thus, my conclusion is that // something results with crash, but it is impossible to tell without seeing the implementation of that method.
Related
I created Interfaces (abstract classes) that expends other Interfaces in C++ and I tried to implement them but errors occur when I compile.
Here are the errors:
main.cpp: In function 'int main()':
main.cpp:36:38: error: cannot allocate an object of abstract type 'Subclass'
Subclass * subObj = new Subclass();
^
Subclass.h:13:7: note: because the following virtual functions are pure within 'Subclass':
class Subclass : SubInterface {
^
SuperInterface.h:13:18: note: virtual void SuperInterface::doSomething()
virtual void doSomething()=0;
Here are my sources:
#include <iostream>
class SuperInterface {
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
protected:
int someValue;
};
class SubInterface : public SuperInterface {
public:
virtual void doSomethingElseThatHasNothingToDoWithTheOtherMethod() = 0;
protected:
int anotherValue;
};
class Superclass : public SuperInterface {
public:
Superclass() {}
virtual ~Superclass() {}
void doSomething() {std::cout << "hello stackoverflow!";}
};
class Subclass : public SubInterface {
public:
Subclass() {}
virtual ~Subclass() {}
void doSomethingElseThatHasNothingToDoWithTheOtherMethod() {std::cout << "goodbye stackoverflow!";}
};
int main(void)
{
Superclass * superObj = new Superclass();
Subclass * subObj = new Subclass();
}
Here's what I want:
I want my implementation to be aware and so have the same behaviour as of already overriden methods (e.g subObj->doSomething() method works without the need to implement it again). Can anyone tell me what I should do to make that happen if it's even possible? Thanks.
No, you can't do what you want through simple inheritance. At no point does Subclass inherit, or provide, an implementation of doSomething(), so you can't call subObj->doSomething() as you desire. You must honour the interface contract of subInterface.
You could inherit Subclass from Superclass and Subinterface, and just implement doSomething() as a kind of proxy, Superclass::doSomething(). You still need an implementation but you don't have to 're-implement' it.
You're getting the error because you're trying to create an object of an abstract class.
Your Subclass is an abstract class because of this line void doSomethingElse()=0;.
If a class has one pure virtual function, it will be an abstract class. You can't create an object of an abstract class, you can only have a reference or a pointer to it.
To get rid of the error, the declaration of doSomethingElse in Subclass should be
void doSomethingElse();
Instead of void doSomethingElse()=0;
Also I don't see why you need two interfaces. You could derive Subclass from the SuperInterface, as it is basically just the same as SubInterface
To be honest, I am not entirely sure what your design wants to express, but there are at least two technical errors here:
1.) You use private inheritance in all cases, so you do not actually deal with "interfaces" at all. Public inheritance is achieved like this:
class SubInterface : public SuperInterface
2.) You use =0 for a function you apparently want to implement.
This will fix the compiler errors, but the design is still questionable. Considering the motivation you gave at the end of your question, I recommend composition rather than (public) inheritance. In C++, to share functionality is best expressed with composition. To put it very brief, encapsulate the commonly used functionality in a separate class and equip the other classes with an object of it.
class CommonFunctionality
{
//...
public:
void doSomething();
void doSomethingElse();
};
class SuperClass
{
//...
private:
CommonFunctionality m_functionality;
};
class SubClass : public SuperClass
{
//...
private:
CommonFunctionality m_functionality;
};
In fact, perhaps you don't even need to create a class for CommonFunctionality. Perhaps simple free-standing functions would do. Programmers with a Java background (and your code looks a bit like it) tend to put too stuff into classes than what is necessary in C++.
Your class 'Subclass' should override 2 pure virtual methods, so:
class Subclass : SubInterface {
public:
Subclass();
virtual ~Subclass();
void doSomethingElse() override;
void doSomething() override;
};
by not doing so or stating
void doSomethingElse()=0;
class Subclass becomes abstract too, which cannot be instantiated. You could havea look at :http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/pure-virtual-fns.html
Here's what I want: I want my implementation to be aware and so have
the same behaviour as of already overriden methods (e.g
subObj->doSomething() method works without the need to implement it
again). Can anyone tell me what I should do to make that happen if
it's even possible!!?? Thanks.
--> maybe declare the methods virtual not pure virtual
There are 2 problems, which are clearly stated by compiler:
Problem 1
SubInterface::doSomethingElse()() in Subclass is declared as pure virtual, disregarding that you trying to define it in source file (I'm pretty sure, that this is a copy-paste kind of errors).
class Subclass : SubInterface
{
public:
Subclass();
virtual ~Subclass();
void doSomethingElse() = 0; // still pure?
};
Solution is obvious:
class Subclass : SubInterface
{
public:
Subclass();
virtual ~Subclass();
virtual void doSomethingElse() override
{
}
};
(here using C++11 override specifier, so compiler will check correctness of overriding; it is not obligatory)
Problem 2
doSomething() is not even tried to be overriden, neither in SuperInterface, nor in Subclass, so it stays pure virtual. Although doSomething() is overriden in Superclass, Subclass has no idea about existance of Superclass.
Solution: override doSomething() either in SuperInterface, or in Subclass, or in any of children of Subclass (don't have them yet). For example, overriding in Subclass:
class Subclass : SubInterface
{
public:
Subclass();
virtual ~Subclass();
virtual void doSomething() override
{
}
virtual void doSomethingElse() override
{
}
};
Other issues:
You are inheriting without visibility specifier, i.e. privately. Use public inheritance until you really need something else:
class Derved : public Base {};
Your source files have .c extension, but containing C++ code. This can confuse some compilers if you do not state programming language explicitly via command line arguments. By convention, most programmers use .cpp extension, and most compilers treat such files as C++ source files.
I have the following structure
class Base
{
public:
Base(Type);
virtual render
}
class A
{
public:
Base(Type == A);
void render()
}
class B
{
public:
Base(Type == B);
void render()
}
void client_function()
{
Base baseObject(A);
//Base is an instance of class A
baseObject.render()//runs class A render
}
There are things in the above code that are not c++ as far as I am aware, they are closely related to pattern matching found in Haskell for example, but this is the best way I could find to illustrate my question without already knowing the answer ;)
In writing I want the client to be able to create a base object and pass the type of object as an argument, the correct specification of the object is returned and the client need not care less about it, just knows that running render will run the correct specific render.
Please feel free to ask questions if I have been unclear :)
I think you need to read about virtual functions and inheritance:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/virtual-functions.html
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/proper-inheritance.html
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/abcs.html
You need run-time polymorphism. There is not much important part of constructor. You have to inherit the Base into A and B. For example:
class Base
{
public:
virtual void render (); // <--- declare 'virtual'
virtual ~Base(); // <--- very much needed to avoid undefined behavior
};
class A : public Base //<---- inheritance
{
public:
void render(); // <--- this also becomes 'virtual'
};
...
Now you can use as per your requirement.
Base *baseObject = new A(); // <----- need to use pointer (or reference)
(*baseObject).render(); // <--- other way to write: baseObject->render();
delete baseObject;
I'm not sure I understood your question. In C++ you cannot choose your base class at runtime, but you certainly can have your base class depend from the derived class. This is done by using templates and what is known as the Curiously Recurring Template Pattern:
template <typename T> class Base {
public:
virtual void render(T *) {}
};
class A : public Base<A>
{
public:
void render(A * t) {}
};
class B : public Base<B>
{
public:
void render(B * t) {}
};
void client_function() {
A a1;
A a2;
a1.render(&a2); // calls A::render
a1.Base<A>::render(&a2); // calls Base<A>::render
Base<A> * ba = &a1;
ba->render(&a2); // calls A::render
}
Hope this answers your question.
What you ask for is exactly what inheritance is for: creating object from a class hierarchy that specializes a functionality.
In your example, apart from syntax problems, things will work as you expect, i.e. method A::render will be called, even if you don't know at compile time that object, declared as a Base, is indeed a A. That's virtual inheritance magicness.
I'm trying to solve a problem where I have some classes in which I need to do some common work and then a bunch of problem specific work and when this is finished do some more processing common to all these classes.
I have a Base and Derived class that both have a function called Execute. When I call the derived version of this function, I'd like to be able to do some processing common to all my derived classes in the Base and then continue executing in my Derived::Execute and going back to Base::Execute to finish off with some common work.
Is this possible in C++ and how would one best go about doing that?
This is the idea, however it's probably not very workable like this:
class Base
{
public:
virtual void Execute();
};
Base::Execute() {
// do some pre work
Derived::Execute(); //Possible????
// do some more common work...
}
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void Execute();
};
void Derived::Execute()
{
Base::Execute();
//Do some derived specific work...
}
int main()
{
Base * b = new Derived();
b.Execute(); //Call derived, to call into base and back into derived then back into base
}
Use a pure virtual function from base..
class Base
{
public:
void Execute();
private:
virtual void _exec() = 0;
};
Base::Execute() {
// do some common pre work
// do derived specific work
_exec();
// do some more common work...
}
class Derived : public Base
{
private:
void _exec() {
// do stuff
}
};
int main()
{
Base * b = new Derived();
b.Execute();
}
EDIT: changed the flow slightly after reading the question some more.. :) The above mechanism should match exactly what you require now -
i.e.
Base Common Stuff
Derived specific stuff
Base Common stuff again
This is called the NVI (Non-Virtual Interface, from Herb Sutter here) idiom in C++, and basically says that you should not have public virtual functions, but rather protected/private virtual functions. User code will have to call your public non-virtual function in the base class, and that will dispatch through to the protected/private virtual method.
From a design perspective the rationale is that a base class has two different interfaces, on one side the user interface, determined by the public subset of the class, and on the other end the extensibility interface or how the class can be extended. By using NVI you are decoupling both interfaces and allowing greater control in the base class.
class base {
virtual void _foo(); // interface to extensions
public:
void foo() { // interface to users
// do some ops
_foo();
}
};
Turn the problem from its head to its feet. What you actually want to have is a base class algorithm that derived classes can plug into:
class Base {
public:
void Execute()
{
// do something
execute();
// do some more things
}
private:
virtual void execute() = 0;
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
// whatever
private:
virtual void execute()
{
//do some fancy stuff
}
};
Letting derived classes plug into base class algorithms is often called "template method" pattern (which has nothing to do with template. Having no public virtual functions in the base class interface is often called "non-virtual interface" pattern.
I'm sure google can find you a lot on those two.
Move that Base::Execute internally in two functions and then use RAII to implement that easily.
class Base{
protected:
void PreExecute(){
// stuff before Derived::Execute
}
void PostExecute(){
// stuff after Derived::Execute
}
public:
virtual void Execute() = 0;
};
struct ScopedBaseExecute{
typedef void(Base::*base_func)();
ScopedBaseExecute(Base* p)
: ptr_(p)
{ ptr_->PreExecute() }
~ScopedBaseExecute()
{ ptr_->PostExecute(); }
Base* ptr_;
};
class Derived : public Base{
public:
void Execute{
ScopedBaseExecute exec(this);
// do whatever you want...
}
};
For instance I have code like that
class Base1
{
virtual void wonderFULL() = 0;
};
class Base2
{
// all this weird members
};
class Derived : public Base1, public Base2
{
// not so weird members
};
int main()
{
Derived Wonder;
magicFunction(&Wonder);
return 0;
}
void magicFunction(Base2 *ptr)
{
if (Base1 *b1 = dynamic_cast<Base1 *>(ptr))
b1->wonderFULL();
}
However wonderFULL is never executed due to impossibility to cast ptr to b1. Is it possible at all to perform such a conversion?
This
#include <iostream>
class Base1 {
public:
virtual void wonderFULL() = 0;
};
class Base2 {
public:
virtual ~Base2() {} // added so the code compiles
};
class Derived : public Base1, public Base2 {
virtual void wonderFULL() {std::cout << "wonderful\n";} // added so the code compiles
};
void magicFunction(Base2 *ptr) {
if (Base1 *b1 = dynamic_cast<Base1 *>(ptr))
b1->wonderFULL();
}
int main() {
Derived Wonder;
magicFunction(&Wonder);
return 0;
}
prints wonderful for me. My conclusion is that you're not showing the code necessary for your problem to reproduce.
Take (a copy of) your actual code and by removing uneccessary code step by step distill it until you derive at a self-contained (needs no other headers except from the std lib), compilable example that reproduces the problem. Very likely you will find the problem while doing so. However, if you don't, you have the perfect repro case to come back here and ask about.
You have some syntax errors, but your real problem is dynamic_cast won't work properly if your base classes don't have at least one virtual function.
If you make it look like:
class Base2
{
public:
virtual ~Base2() {}
// all this weird members
};
And then fix your other errors:
wonderFULL is private, and never defined.
magicFunction is declared after it is used.
Then everything works.
You can cast up the hierarchy then back down:
void magicFunction(Base2& ptr)
{
try
{
Derived& d = dynamic_cast<Derived&>(ptr);
Base1& b = dynamic_cast<Base1&>(d);
b.wonderFULL();
}
catch(const std::bad_cast&)
{ /* Cast failed */ }
}
Going by what I understand of the way some C++ compilers arrange the class hierarchy in memory it should be possible to cast from one base class to another, but you have to first cast to the derived class.
Therefore you would need to do something like:
Base1* b1 = dynamic_cast<Derived*>(ptr);
This casts the given pointer ptr to the derived class, and then it gets implicitly cast to its other base class pointer.
However another easier way to do this would be to just have a method in the Base2 class that returns a Base1 pointer, and the derived class can implement this itself without any tricky code. (The same function in Base2 can just return NULL if you don't want a pure virtual class).
I've found the problem. It was not about dynamic_casts. I was checking wrong object which was not inherited from abstract base. Thanks.
I'm slightly confused about runtime polymorphism. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, runtime polymorphism means that function definitions will get resolved at runtime.
Take this example:
class a
{
a();
~a();
void baseclass();
}
class b: class a
{
b();
~b();
void derivedclass1();
}
class c: class a
{
c();
~c();
void derivedclass2();
}
Calling methodology:
b derived1;
a *baseptr = &derived1; //here base pointer knows that i'm pointing to derived class b.
baseptr->derivedclass1();
In the above calling methodology, the base class knows that it's pointing to derived class b.
So where does the ambiguity exist?
In what cases will the function definitions get resolved at runtime?
This code, at run time, calls the correct version of f() depending on the type of object (A or B) that was actually created - no "ambiguity". The type cannot be known at compile-time, because it is selected randomly at run-time.
struct A {
virtual ~A() {}
virtual void f() {}
};
struct B : public A {
virtual void f() {}
};
int main() {
A * a = 0;
if ( rand() % 2 ) {
a = new A;
}
else {
a = new B;
}
a->f(); // calls correct f()
delete a;
}
There is no ambiguity exists in the example provided.
If the base class has the same function name as the derived class, and if you call in the way you specified, it will call the base class's function instead of the derived class one.
In such cases, you can use the virtual keyword, to ensure that the function gets called from the object that it is currently being pointed. It is resolved during the run time.
Here you can find more explanation..
Turn this
void baseclass();
to
virtual void baseclass();
Override this in your Derived classes b and c. Then
b *derived1 = new derived1 ();
a *baseptr = derived1; //base pointer pointing to derived class b.
baseptr->baseclass();
will invoke derived1 definition, expressing run time polymorphism. And do remember about making your destructor virtual in Base. Some basic reading material for polymorphism
Runtime means that exact method will be known only at run time. Consider this example:
class BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void method() {...};
};
class DerivedClassA : public BaseClass
{
virtual void method() {...};
};
class DerivedClassB : public BaseClass
{
virtual void method() {...};
};
void func(BaseClass* a)
{
a->method();
}
When you implement your ::func() you don't know exactly type of instance pointed by BaseClass* a. It might be DerivedClassA or DerivedClassB instance etc.
You should realize, that runtime polymorphism requires special support from language (and maybe some overhead for calling "virtual" functions). In C++ you "request" for dynamic polymorphism by declaring methods of base class "virtual" and using public inheritance.
You need to have some useful business method declared in the base and in each derived class. Then you have code such as
a->someMethod();
Now the a pointer might point to an instance of any of the derived classes, and so the type of what a is pointing to must determine which someMethod() is called.
Lets have an experiment
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class aBaseClass
{
public:
void testFunction(){cout<<"hello base";}///Not declared as virtual!!!!
};
class aDerivedClass:public aBaseClass
{
public:
void testFunction(){cout<<"hello derived one";}
};
class anotherDerivedClass:public aDerivedClass
{
public:
void testFunction(){cout<<"hello derived two";}
};
int main()
{
aBaseClass *aBaseClassPointer;
aBaseClassPointer=new aDerivedClass;
aBaseClassPointer->testFunction();
}
The above code does not support run time polymorphism. Lets run and analyze it.
The output is
hello base
Just change the line void testFunction(){cout<<"hello base";} to virtual void testFunction(){cout<<"hello base";} in aBaseClass. Run and analyze it. We see that runtime polymorphism is achieved. The calling of appropriate function is determined at run time.
Again change the line aBaseClassPointer=new aDerivedClass to aBaseClassPointer=new anotherDerivedClass in main function and see the output. Thus the appropriate function calling is determined at run time (when the program is running).