I'm reading about inheritance and I have a major issue that I haven't been able to solve for hours:
Given a class Bar is a class with virtual functions,
class Bar
{
virtual void Cook();
};
What is the different between:
class Foo : public Bar
{
virtual void Cook();
};
and
class Foo : public virtual Bar
{
virtual void Cook();
};
? Hours of Googling and reading came up with lots of information about its uses, but none actually tell me what the difference between the two are, and just confuse me more.
Functionality wise there is not much difference between the 2 versions. With the case of virtual inheritance, every implementation generally adds a (vptr like) pointer (same as in the case of virtual functions). Which helps to avoid multiple base class copies generated due to multiple inheritance (the diamond inheritance problem)
Also, virtual inheritance delegates the right to call the constructor of its base class. For example,
class Bar;
class Foo : public virtual Bar
class Other : public Foo // <--- one more level child class
So, now Bar::Bar() will be called directly from Other::Other() and also will be placed at the first place among other base classes.
This delegation feature helps in implementing a final class (in Java) functionality in C++03:
class Final {
Final() {}
friend class LastClass;
};
class LastClass : virtual Final { // <--- 'LastClass' is not derivable
...
};
class Child : public LastClass { // <--- not possible to have object of 'Child'
};
Virtual inheritance is only relevant if classes are to inherit from
Foo. If I define the following:
class B {};
class L : virtual public B {};
class R : virtual public B {};
class D : public L, public R {};
Then the final object will only contain one copy of B, shared by both
L and R. Without the virtual, an object of type D would contain
two copies of B, one in L, and one in R.
There is some argument that all inheritance should be virtual (because
in the cases where it makes a difference, that is what you want most of
the time). In practice, however, virtual inheritance is expensive, and
in most cases, not necessary: in a well designed system, most
inheritance will simply be of a concrete class inheriting from one or
more "interfaces"; such a concrete class is usually not designed to be
derived from itself, so there is no problem. But there are important
exceptions: if, for example, you define an interface, and then
extensions to the interface, the extensions should inherit virtually
from the base interface, since a concrete implementation could want to
implement several extensions. Or if you are designing mixins, where
certain classes only implement part of the interface, and the final
class inherits from several of these classes (one per part of the
interface). In the end, the criteron as to whether to inherit virtually
or not isn't too difficult:
if the inheritance isn't public, it probably shouldn't be virtual
(I've never seen an exception), otherwise
if the class is not designed to be a base class, there's no need for
virtual inheritance, otherwise
the inheritance should be virtual.
There are a few exceptions, but the above rules err on the side of
safety; it's usually "correct" to inherit virtually even in cases where
the virtual inheritance isn't necessary.
One final point: a virtual base must always be initialized by the most
derived class, not the class that directly inherits (and declares that
the inheritance is virtual). In practice, however, this is a non-issue.
If you look at the cases where virtual inheritance makes sense, it is
always a case of inheriting from an interface, which will contain no
data, and thus have (only) a default constructor. If you find yourself
inheriting virtually from classes with constructors which take
arguments, it's time to ask some serious questions about the design.
In this case, no difference. Virtual inheritance is related to sharing superclass subobjects instances by derived classes
struct A
{
int a;
};
struct B : public virtual A
{
int b;
}
struct C : public virtual A
{
int c;
};
struct D : public B, public C
{
};
There's a single copy of the member variable a in the instance of D; If A was not a virtual base class, there would be two A subobjects in instance of D.
Virtual function is a function that will probably have different implementation in derived class (although it's not a must).
In your last example is virtual inheritance. Imagine a case where you have two classes (A and B) derived from a base class (let's call it 'Base'). Now imagine a third class C derived from A and B. Without virtual inheritance, the C would contain two copies of 'Base'. That could lead to ambiguity while compiling. The important thing in virtual inheritance is that the parameters for the 'Base' class constructor (if any) MUST be provided in the class C, because such calls from A and B will be ignored.
Related
Regarding the question "How to publicly inherit from a base class but make some of public methods from the base class private in the derived class?", I have a follow-up question:
I can understand that the C++ standard allows a derived class to relax access restrictions of an inherited method, but I can not think of any legitimate use case where it would make sense to impose access restrictions in the derived class.
From my understanding of the concept of inheritance, if class Derived is public class Base, then anything you can do with Base can also be done with Derived. If one does not want Derived to fulfill the interface of Base, one should not use (public) inheritance in the first place. (Indeed, when I encountered this technique in the wild in ROOT's TH2::Fill(double), is was a clear case of inheritance abuse.)
For virtual methods, access restrictions in Derived are also useless, because any user of Derived can use them by casting a Derived* into a Base*.
So, from my limited C++ newbie point of view, these restrictions are misleading (the programmer of Derived might assume that his virtual now-protected method is not called by anyone else, when in fact it might be) and also confuses [me with regard to] what public inheritance should imply.
Is there some legitimate use case I am missing?
From Herb Sutter, Guru of the Week #18:
Guideline #3: Only if derived classes need to invoke the base implementation of a virtual function, make the virtual function protected.
For detail answer, please read my comment in the code written below:
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <memory>
struct Ultimate_base {
virtual ~Ultimate_base() {}
void foo() { do_foo(); }
protected:
// Make this method protected, so the derived class of this class
// can invoke this implementation
virtual void do_foo() { std::cout << "Ultimate_base::foo"; }
};
struct Our_derived : Ultimate_base {
private:
// Make this method private, so the derived class of this class
// can't invoke this implementation
void do_foo() {
Ultimate_base::do_foo();
std::cout << " Our_derived::foo";
}
};
struct Derive_from_derive : Our_derived {
private:
void do_foo() {
// You can't call below code
// vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
// Our_derived::do_foo();
std::cout << " Derive_from_derive::foo";
}
};
// This class is marked final by making its destructor private
// of course, from C++11, you have new keyword final
struct Derive_with_private_dtor : Ultimate_base {
private:
~Derive_with_private_dtor() {}
};
// You can't have below class because its destructor needs to invoke
// its direct base class destructor
// vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
/*
struct Derive_from_private_dtor : Derive_with_private_dtor {
};
*/
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Ultimate_base> p = std::make_unique<Our_derived>();
p->foo();
p = std::make_unique<Derive_from_derive>();
p->foo();
p.reset(new Derive_with_private_dtor);
}
From my understanding of the concept of inheritance, if class Derived is public class Base, then anything you can do with Base can also be done with Derived.
This isn't really the concept of inheritance; this is the concept of polymorphism. In particular, this is a statement of the Liskov Substitution Principle. But inheritance can be used for various things in C++ beyond just polymorphism. In fact, anytime your base class has non-virtual methods or data members, you are using it to inject implementation or state into derived classes, not only for polymorphism. If the base class has no virtual methods and no virtual destructor, then the class shouldn't (can't) be used polymorphically. You may use a base class where neither will the base class ever be instantiated, nor will you ever use a pointer to a base. Here's an example:
template <class T>
struct Foo {
T double_this() { return 2 * static_cast<T&>(*this).data; }
T halve_this() { return 0.5 * static_cast<T&>(*this).data; }
};
What does this weird class do? Well, it can be used to inject some interface into any class with a data member called data (and an appropriate constructor):
struct Bar : Foo<Bar> {
Bar(double x) : data(x) {}
double data;
};
Now Bar has methods double and halve. This pattern is called Curiously Recurring Template Pattern (CRTP). Note that we're never going to instantiate Foo<Bar> or have a pointer to it. We just use the interface it provides, non polymorphically.
Now, suppose someone wants to use Foo, but only wants double in their interface but not halve. In this case, it's completely valid to make halve private in the derived. After all, the derived class is just some particular, non polymorphic type, that does not need to conform to any interface other than what the author wants/documents.
Note that when using CRTP, the base class will typically provide public functions, and you'll typically inherit publicly. The entire advantage of CRTP in this use case is that you can inject interface directly; if you were going to make the methods private or inherit privately you'd be better off make Foo<Bar> a member of Bar instead. So it would be more common to make something public into something private, rather than the reverse, in this particular situation.
I have following dilemma:
I have a full abstract class. Each inheriting class will need 3 same parameters. Each of them will additionally need other specific parameters.
I could:
1) implement a common constructor for initializing 3 common parameters in my base class, but then I have to make non-abstract getters for corresponding fields (they are private).
OR
2) leave my base class abstract and implement constructors in inherited classes, but then I have to make it in each class fields for common parameters.
Which is a better approach? I don't want to use protected members.
An abstract class is one who has at least one pure virtual (or, as you call it, abstract) function. Having non-abstract, non-virtual functions does not change the fact that your class is abstract as long as it has at least one pure virtual function. Go for having the common functionality in your base class, even if it is abstract.
One way to avoid code duplication without polluting your abstract interface with data members, is by introducing an additional level of inheritance:
// Only pure virtual functions here
class Interface {
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
// Things shared between implementations
class AbstractBase : public Interface {
};
class ImplementationA : public AbstractBase {
};
class ImplementationB : public AbstractBase {
};
If your class looks like this, a pure abstract class:
class IFoo {
public:
virtual void doThings() = 0;
}
class Foo {
public:
Foo(std::string str);
void doThings() override;
}
The value your inheritance has is to provide you with the oppurtunity to subsitute Foo with another at runtime, but hiding concrete implementations behind interfaces. You can't use that advantage with Constructors, there's no such thing as a virtual constructor (that's why things like the Abstract Factory Pattern exist). All your implementations of Foo take a std::string and all your implementations of doThings use that string? Great, but that's a coincidence not a contract and doesn't belong in IFoo.
Lets talk about if you've created concrete implementations in IFoo, so that it's a abstract class and not a pure abstract class (IFoo would be a bad name now btw). (*1) Lets assume using inheritance to share behaviour was the correct choice for you class, which is sometimes true. If the class has fields that need to be initialised create a protected constructor (to be called from every child implementation) and remove/ommit the default one.
class BaseFoo {
private:
std::string _fooo;
protected:
BaseFoo(std::string fooo) : _fooo(fooo) {}
public:
virtual void doThings() = 0;
std::string whatsTheBaseString() { return _fooo;}
}
Above is the way you correctly pass fields needed by a base class from the child constructor. This is a compile time guarantee that a child class will 'remember' to initialize _fooo correctly and avoids exposing the actual member fooo to child classes. Trying to initialize _fooo in all the child constructors directly would be incorrect here.
*1) Quickly, why? Composition may be a better tool here?.
I would like to ask a question about programming style in this case of derived class:
class A
{
public:
virtual foo1()=0;
}
class B: public A
{
public:
virtual foo1();
virtual foo2();
}
class C: public A
{
public:
virtual foo1();
}
int main() {
B mB();
C mC();
mB.foo2() //OK!
mC.foo2() // obviously, it is not correct
return 0;}
Therefore, should a derived class have less or equal public methods than the abstract base class?
If the derived classes require more methods, should these be private?
Derived classes will almost always have more public functions than base classes. This is the point of inheritance: you can define an abstract base class which only outlines the basic behavior of a variable, then derived classes can expand upon this basic behavior for specific cases.
An inherited class is always a specialization of the base class. It implements more specific functions (and usually more functions all together). In you're example, you're expecting two different specializations to behave the same way outside of the behavior defined by the base class. (foo2 is not defined in A). That's where the problem lies. If you need to define common behavior outside of A, the solution would be to create an intermediate class.
class Intermediate : public A
{
public:
virtual foo1()=0;
virtual foo2()=0;
}
class B: public Intermediate
{
public:
virtual foo1();
virtual foo2();
}
Now any class which can implement foo2 should extend Intermediate, and any function which requires functionality foo2 should ask for a variable with at least type Intermediate.
There is nothing wrong with this class structure. There is nothing wrong with a derived class having more methods than the parent class-- it's quite commonplace. The line mC.foo2(); is just wrong, and that is not the fault of the classes.
A derived class must at least implement ALL abstract methods from the base class. This is the minimum. If you do add other methods, members or whatever is up to you.
But it would be not very smart to derive from the class and add nothing, because this is not what inheritance is for (at least IS-A-relationships). If you go for private inheritance it might be different.
In nearly ALL projects I've worked on, we have had baseclasses that have less functionality than the derived class - in extreme cases, the baseclass may even just have nearly no functionality, but the derived class has dozens of functions and a half a dozen member variables.
This is exactly what derived classes are meant to do.
Obviously, you need to KNOW what kind of derived class you have, and only use the derived classes "extra" functions when they are available.
In C++, if I have a class Base which is a private base class of Derived but Base has no virtual functions, would it be cleaner to instead replace having inheritance with encapsulation in class Encapsulate? I imagine the only benefit to inheritance in this case would be that the base class can be accessed directly in the derived class as opposed to through memberVariable. Is one or the other practice considered better, or is it more of a personal style question?
class Base {
public:
void privateWork();
// No virtual member functions here.
};
class Derived : Base {
public:
void doSomething() {
privateWork();
}
};
class Encapsulate {
Base memberVariable;
public:
void doSomething() {
memberVariable.privateWork()
}
};
Remember that inheritance models "Liskov substitution": Foo is a Bar if and only if you can pass a Foo variable to every function expecting a Bar. Private inheritance does not model this. It models composition (Foo is implemented in terms of Bar).
Now, you should pretty much always use the second version, since it is simpler and expresses the intent better: it is less confusing for people who don't know about it.
However, sometimes, private inheritance is handy:
class FooCollection : std::vector<Foo>
{
public:
FooCollection(size_t n) : std::vector<Foo>(n) {};
using std::vector<Foo>::begin;
using std::vector<Foo>::end;
using std::vector<Foo>::operator[];
};
This allows you to reuse some of the functionality of vector without having to forward manually the 2 versions (const + non const) of begin, end, and operator[].
In this case, you don't have polymorphism at all: this is not inheritance, this is composition is disguise; there is no way you can use a FooCollection as a vector. In particular, you don't need a virtual destructor.
If there are no virtual functions, then inheritance should not be used in OO. Note this does not mean that it must not be used, there are a few (limited) cases where you might need to (ab)use inheritance for other purposes than OO.
I made a test code as following:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#ifndef interface
#define interface struct
#endif
interface Base
{
virtual void funcBase() = 0;
};
interface Derived1 : public Base
{
virtual void funcDerived1() = 0;
};
interface Derived2 : public Base
{
virtual void funcDerived2() = 0;
};
interface DDerived : public Derived1, public Derived2
{
virtual void funcDDerived() = 0;
};
class Implementation : public DDerived
{
public:
void funcBase() { cout << "base" << endl; }
void funcDerived1() { cout << "derived1" << endl; }
void funcDerived2() { cout << "derived2" << endl; }
void funcDDerived() { cout << "dderived" << endl; }
};
int main()
{
DDerived *pObject = new Implementation;
pObject->funcBase();
return 0;
}
The reason I wrote this code is to test if the function funcBase() can be called in an instance of DDerived or not. My C++ complier (Visual Studio 2010) gave me a compile error message when I tried to compile this code. In my opinion, there is no problem in this code because it is certain that the function funcBase() will be implemented (thus overriden) in some derived class of the interface DDerived, because it is pure virtual. In other words, any pointer variable of type Implementation * should be associated with an instance of a class deriving Implentation and overriding the function funcBase().
My question is, why the compiler give me such an error message? Why the C++ syntax is defined like that; i.e., to treat this case as an error? How can I make the code runs? I want to allow multiple inheritance of interfaces. Of course, if I use "virtual public" or re-declare the function funcBase() in Implementation like
interface DDerived : public Derived1, public Derived2
{
virtual void funcBase() = 0;
virtual void funcDDerived() = 0;
};
then everything runs with no problem.
But I don't want to do that and looking for more convenient method, because virtual inheritance may degrade the performance, and re-declaration is so tedious to do if inheritance relations of classes are very complex. Is there any methods to enable multiple inheritance of interfaces in C++ other than using virtual inheritance?
As you've defined it, your object structure looks like this:
The important point here is that each instance of Implementation contains two entirely separate instances of Base. You're providing an override of Base::funcBase, but it doesn't know whether you're trying to override funcBase for the Base you inherited through Derived1, or the Base you inherited through Derived2.
Yes, the clean way to deal with this is virtual inheritance. This will change your structure so there's only one instance of Base:
This is almost undoubtedly what you really want. Yes, it got a reputation for performance problems in the days of primitive compilers and 25 MHz 486's and such. With a modern compiler and processor, you're unlikely to encounter a problem.
Another possibility would be some sort of template-based alternative, but that tends to pervade the rest of your code -- i.e., instead of passing a Base *, you write a template that will work with anything that provides functions A, B, and C, then pass (the equivalent of) Implementation as a template parameter.
The C++ language is designed in such a way that in your first approach without virtual inheritance there will be two parent copies of the method and it can't figure out which one to call.
Virtual inheritance is the C++ solution to inheriting the same function from multiple bases, so I would suggest just using that approach.
Alternately have you considered just not inheriting the same function from multiple bases? Do you really have a derived class that you need to be able to treat as Derived1 or Derived2 OR Base depending on the context?
In this case elaborating on a concrete problem rather than a contrived example may help provide a better design.
DDerived *pObject = new Implementation;
pObject->funcBase();
This creates a pointer of type DDerived to a Implementation. When you are using DDerived you really just have a pointer to an interface.
DDerived does not know about the implementation of funcBase because of the ambiguity of having funcBase being defined in both Derived1 and Derived2.
This has created a inheritance diamond which is what is really causing the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_problem
I also had to check on the interface "keyword" you have in there
it's an ms-specific extension that's recognised by visual studio
I think C++ Standard 10.1.4 - 10.1.5 can help you to understand the problem in your code.
class L { public: int next; /∗ ... ∗/ };
class A : public L { /∗...∗/ };
class B : public L { /∗...∗/ };
class C : public A, public B { void f(); /∗ ... ∗/ };
10.1.4 A base class specifier that does not contain the keyword virtual,
specifies a non-virtual base class. A base class specifier that
contains the keyword virtual, specifies a virtual base class. For each
distinct occurrence of a non-virtual base class in the class lattice
of the most derived class, the most derived object (1.8) shall contain
a corresponding distinct base class subobject of that type. For each
distinct base class that is specified virtual, the most derived object
shall contain a single base class subobject of that type. [ Example:
for an object of class type C, each distinct occurrence of a
(non-virtual) base class L in the class lattice of C corresponds
one-to-one with a distinct L subobject within the object of type C.
Given the class C defined above, an object of class C will have two
subobjects of class L as shown below.
10.1.5 In such lattices, explicit qualification can be used to specify which
subobject is meant. The body of function C::f could refer to the
member next of each L subobject: void C::f() { A::next = B::next; } //
well-formed. Without the A:: or B:: qualifiers, the definition of C::f
above would be ill-formed because of ambiguity
So just add qualifiers when calling pObject->funcBase() or solve ambiguity in another way.
pObject->Derived1::funcBase();
Updated: Also very helpful reading will be 10.3 Virtual Functions of Standard.
Have a nice weekend :)