I am curious if there is a neat way to expose methods in the base class of a derived interface.
So in code: -
class cbase {
public:
void MyMethodA() { }
};
class cderived : public cbase {
public:
void MyMethodB() { }
}
class ibase {
public:
virtual void MyMethodA() = 0;
};
class iderived : public ibase {
public:
virtual void MyMethodB() = 0;
};
Now if I make cbase inherit ibase, and cderived implement iderived, the compiler will complain that when I instantiate cderived, MyMethodA() is abstract and not implemented.
MyMethodA() is implemented in the base class and through ibase. Is the only way to fix this to reimplement ibase's methods in the cderived class? If so, yuck!
So as below: -
class cbase : public ibase {
public:
void MyMethodA() { }
};
class cderived : public cbase, public iderived {
public:
void MyMethodA() { cbase::MyMethodA(); }
void MyMethodB() { }
};
cderived inst;
iderived *der = &inst;
der->MyMethodA();
der->MyMethodB();
ibase *bas = der;
bas->MyMethodA();
I hope this is enough to convey the question. :) It might sound a little loopy as we are trying to refactor old code.
I am sure there is plenty of eager commentary out there ;)
If I understand correctly you want to make ibase a virtual base class of iderived and cbase.
This was there is only one instance of each of your interface classes in the class hierarchy and when you join cbase and iderived together at the cderived level the non-virtual override of MyMethodA in cbase is used because it is the dominating override.
See here: Hidden Features of C++?
E.g.
class ibase {
public:
virtual void MyMethodA() = 0;
};
class iderived : public virtual ibase {
public:
virtual void MyMethodB() = 0;
};
class cbase : public virtual ibase {
public:
void MyMethodA() { }
};
class cderived : public cbase, public virtual iderived {
public:
void MyMethodB() { }
};
int main()
{
cderived inst;
iderived *der = &inst;
der->MyMethodA();
der->MyMethodB();
ibase *bas = der;
bas->MyMethodA();
}
Take a look into multiple inheritance.
The answer to that faq item is basically answer to your question :
class cderived : public virtual cbase {
public:
void MyMethodB() { }
}
class ibase {
public:
virtual void MyMethodA() = 0;
};
class iderived : public virtual ibase {
public:
virtual void MyMethodB() = 0;
};
Related
I was wondering what was the best way to achieve code reuse by inheritance in a COM application.
The Problem
It came to my understanding that the virtual inheritance model of C++ cannot by used in a COM environment because it is not language independent.
In pure C++ a class hierarchy could look something like the following:
interface IBase {
virtual void BaseMethod() = 0;
};
interface IDerived : virtual IBase {
virtual void DerivedMethod() = 0;
};
class CBase : public virtual IBase {
public:
virtual void BaseMethod() override { /* Do something */ }
};
class CDerived : public IDerived, public CBase {
public:
virtual void DerivedMethod() override { /* Do something */ }
};
This results in the following hierarchy:
IDerived and CBase both inherit virtually from IBase.
Since virtual inheritance is not available in COM, the class hierarchy would rather look something like this:
interface IBase {
virtual void BaseMethod() = 0;
};
interface IDerived : IBase {
virtual void DerivedMethod() = 0;
};
class CBase : public IBase {
public:
virtual void BaseMethod() override { /* Do something */ }
};
class CDerived : public IDerived, public CBase {
public:
virtual void DerivedMethod() override { /* Do something */ }
};
This results in the following hierarchy:
At first glance, there seems to be a problem with the ambiguity of IBase. This can be easily resolved by implementing the IUnknown::QueryInterface method.
The real problem is, how can CDerived inherit the implemented methods of IBase from CBase, namely CBase::BaseMethod?
In the case of virtual inheritance, CBase::BaseMethod can be inherited by dominance, but without virtual inheritance this cannot happen: In CDerived, the method CBase::IBase::BaseMethod is defined, however the method IDerived::IBase::BaseMethod is not, resulting in the class CBase still being abstract and not thus not eligible for instantiation.
One way, to resolve this would be to override the method BaseMethod in CDerived once again:
class CDerived : public IDerived, public CBase {
public:
virtual void BaseMethod() override { CBase::BaseMethod(); }
virtual void DerivedMethod() override { /* Do something */ }
};
Does this have any performance implications? Is there a better way of achieving what I want? Doesn't the repeated override of the function in CDerived defeat the whole idea of inheritance?
ATL widely uses a technique that goes like this:
template <typename Itf>
class IBaseImpl : public Itf {
public:
void BaseMethod() override;
};
class CBase : public IBaseImpl<IBase> {};
class CDerived : public IBaseImpl<IDerived> {
public:
void DerivedMethod() override;
};
Now you have straight-line inheritance: IBase <- IDerived <- IBaseImpl<IDerived> <- CDerived.
Question
Why not to try virtual inheritance if it seems to solve my diamond inheritance problem below?
Briefing:
While learning C++, I came with some compiler errors for the following code:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>
class IFoo{
public:
virtual void Hello() = 0;
};
class Foo : public IFoo{
public:
void Hello()
{
printf("Hello");
}
};
class IBar : public IFoo{
public:
virtual void HelloWorld() = 0;
};
class Bar : public IBar, public Foo{
public:
void HelloWorld()
{
Hello();
printf("World");
}
};
int main()
{
Bar b;
b.HelloWorld();
system("pause");
return 0;
}
I want Bar to implement abstract class IBar which has IFoo as a base class but then I want all the implementation of IFoo provided by Bar's second base class Foo.
I get 2 compiler errors (GCC 4.9.2): One related to ambiguities and another one about missing implementations for abstract class IFoo.
Then I found this question and got to meet the concept of virtual inheritance, which lead me to this page. Following the tutorial, I added virtual inheritance and all problems were gone:
class Foo : public virtual IFoo{...
class IBar : public virtual IFoo{...
But a user in the question suggest not to try virtual inheritance. Hence my question.
Your class
Bar
must override
Hello
otherwise class Bar also becomes purely abstract, because
Hello
is inherited all the way from
IFoo.
Whenever a class inherits an abtract base class it must implement all of the base class' pure virtual functions, otherwise the derived class itself also becomes abstract.
class Base{
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
// this class is abstract, it doesn't implement Base::foo
class Derived1 : public Base{
public:
void fooDerived() {}
};
// this class is not abstract, it implements Base::foo
class Derived2 : public Base{
public:
void foo() {}
};
As suggested in another answer, in C++11 you can declare the function using the override keyword, which ensures that the function overrides a virtual function. Like this:
// this class is not abstract, it implements Base::foo
class Derived2 : public Base{
public:
void foo() override {}
};
Virtual inheritance solves another problem, the problem of ambiguity when inheriting from more than one base class which declares identical functions or members.
Your Hello() call in Bar::HelloWorld() is ambiguous. The compiler can't tell if you are trying to call Hello() from IBar or Foo. You can call Foo::Hello() or IBar::Hello() in it's place. That being said, your inheritance structure doesn't really make sense.
Your Bar class also needs to override Hello that it inherits from IBar.
If you have c++11, it would be a good idea to mark the virtual functions you are overriding with the override keyword:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>
class IFoo{
public:
virtual void Hello() = 0;
};
class Foo : public IFoo{
public:
virtual void Hello() override
{
printf("Hello");
}
};
class IBar : public IFoo{
public:
virtual void HelloWorld() = 0;
};
class Bar : public IBar, public Foo{
public:
virtual void HelloWorld() override
{
Foo::Hello();
printf("World");
}
void Hello() override {}
};
int main()
{
Bar b;
b.HelloWorld();
system("pause");
return 0;
}
To answer your question on virtual inheritance, you could easily change your inheritance structure to something that still works that avoids a diamond pattern. The diamond pattern is rarely needed and is usually avoidable:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>
class IFoo{
public:
virtual void Hello() = 0;
};
class Foo : public IFoo{
public:
virtual void Hello() override
{
printf("Hello");
}
};
class IBar {
public:
virtual void World() = 0;
};
class Bar : public IBar{
public:
virtual void World() override
{
printf("World");
}
};
class FooBar : public Foo, public Bar
{
public:
virtual void HelloWorld()
{
Hello();
World();
}
};
int main()
{
FooBar b;
b.HelloWorld();
system("pause");
return 0;
}
Say I have an interface hierarchy :
class A
{
virtual void commonFunc() = 0;
};
class B1 : public A
{
virtual void b1SpecificFunc() = 0;
};
class B2 : public A
{
virtual void b2SpecificFunc() = 0;
};
Interface A only exist to avoid duplicating the commonFunc() function.
Now if I want to implement this in order to have 2 instanciatable classes ImplB1 and ImplB2 i could do :
class ImplA
{
virtual void commonFunc();
};
class ImplB1 : public ImplA
{
virtual void b1SpecificFunc();
};
class ImplB2 : public ImplA
{
virtual void b2SpecificFunc();
};
The problem with this is that it makes ImplA instanciatable, which I don't want to. I only want ImplB1 and ImplB2 to be instanciatable, because ImplA is something asbtract that only exist to have the implementation of the common function in common.
How could i design this please ? Thank you.
Interface A only exist to avoid duplicating the commonFunc() function.
You certainly mean to avoid duplicating its declaration, don't you?
class ImplA
{
virtual void commonFunc();
};
This should probably be:
class ImplA : public A
{
virtual void commonFunc();
};
And I guess the point is that ImplA actually has an implementation of commonFunc. So for the sake of this answer's brevity, let's put it into the class definition:
class ImplA : public A
{
virtual void commonFunc() {} // implementation
};
The problem with this is that it makes ImplA instanciatable.
Just make ImplA's destructor pure virtual:
class ImplA : public A
{
public:
virtual ~ImplA() = 0 {}
private:
virtual void commonFunc() {}
};
This will prevent instantiation even inside of derived classes' functions. For example, the following will create a compiler error:
class ImplB1 : public ImplA
{
public:
virtual void b1SpecificFunc()
{
ImplA a; // error, cannot instantiate abstract class
}
};
In fact, you will not even be able to instantiate the class in its own functions:
class ImplA : public A
{
public:
virtual ~ImplA() = 0 {}
private:
virtual void commonFunc()
{
ImplA a; // error, cannot instantiate abstract class
}
};
But seriously, this all seems pretty over-engineered. Perhaps what you really need is to make commonFunc a non-virtual protected function of A, which derived classes can then call if they need to.
Or perhaps commonFunc can just be a free-standing utility function?
You can do the following. Also, here is a SO question/answer about this.
Note: While I'm answering the question that you can do this I'm not asserting it's what you should do.
Code
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
virtual void commonFunc() = 0;
};
void A::commonFunc() // Pure virtual but implemented anyway
{
// Derived classes can explicitly opt-in to this implementation
std::cout << "A::commonFunc()\n";
}
class B1 : public A
{
public:
virtual void b1SpecificFunc() = 0;
};
class B2 : public A
{
virtual void b2SpecificFunc() = 0;
};
class ImplB1 : public B1
{
public:
// This function must be implemented because its declared pure virtual
virtual void commonFunc()
{
// Can override the behavior if desired...
A::commonFunc(); // Explicitly use default implementation
}
virtual void b1SpecificFunc()
{
std::cout << "b1SpecificFunc()\n";
}
};
class ImplB2 : public B2
{
public:
// This function must be implemented because its declared pure virtual
virtual void commonFunc()
{
// Can override the behavior if desired...
A::commonFunc(); // Explicitly use default implementation
}
virtual void b2SpecificFunc()
{
std::cout << "b2SpecificFunc()\n";
}
};
int main()
{
//A a; // Won't compile (as expected/desired)
ImplB1 b1;
ImplB2 b2;
b1.commonFunc();
b1.b1SpecificFunc();
b2.commonFunc();
b2.b2SpecificFunc();
return 0;
}
Output
A::commonFunc()
b1SpecificFunc()
A::commonFunc()
b2SpecificFunc()
there's this code :
class Base{
public:
void disp(){
cout<<"base"<<endl;
}
};
class Der1:public Base{
public:
void test1(){
cout<<"der1 test1"<<endl;
}
};
class Der2:public Base{
public:
void test2(){
cout<<"der2 test2"<<endl;
}
};
class Der3:public Der1,Der2{
public:
void fun(){
cout<<"Der3 fun"<<endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Der3 d;
d.test1();
}
OUTPUT: der1 test1 //printed successfully
but for
int main()
{
Der3 d;
d.test2();
}
it gives error that Der2 is inaccessible ...
However when i change the code to
class Base{
public:
void disp(){
cout<<"base"<<endl;
}
};
class Der1:public Base{
public:
void test1(){
cout<<"der1 test1"<<endl;
}
};
class Der2:public Base{
public:
void test2(){
cout<<"der2 test2"<<endl;
}
};
class Der3:public Der2,Der1{ //***changed the order here***
public:
void fun(){
cout<<"Der3 fun"<<endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Der3 d;
d.test2();
}
it outputs: der2 Test2
Can someone explain what is happening here ?
It should be:
class Der3:public Der2, public Der1{
If you don't specify the access qualifier, it defaults to private.
Also because you have a common base in the two types inherited in Der3 you should use virtual inheritance in Der1 and Der2. This avoids replicating the common Base members (if any.)
class Der1:public virtual Base{...
class Der2:public virtual Base{...
You have to add the accessibility to each base class:
class Der3:public Der1, public Der2{
public:
void fun(){
cout<<"Der3 fun"<<endl;
}
};
When you switch the order Der2 is a public base but Der1 is private.
class Der3:public Der1,Der2 {
The 'public' there is only good for the next base class. You want to write:
class Der3: public Der1, public Der2 {
Also, it should be noted that this example also shows the deadly "diamond" inherience pattern, so it's designer clearly should be slapped.
By default, class inheritance is private. And so:
class Der3: public Der1, Der2
is the same as:
class Der3: public Der1, private Der2
You need to use public inheritance for both base classes:
class Der3: public Der1, public Der2
Let's say the scenario is this.
IBase - interface.
BaseImpl - implementation.
BaseStub - allocates std::unique_ptr to BaseImpl named m_impl.
And then how to achieve the following?
IDerived - interface.
DerivedImpl - implementation, inherits from BaseImpl.
DerivedStub - allocates std::unique_ptr to DerivedImpl named m_impl, inherits from BaseStub.
It becomes a problem that BaseStub already allocates its implementation, and since DerivedStub does the same, it conflicts.
class IBase
{
public:
virtual void f1() = 0;
};
class IDerived
{
public:
virtual void f2() = 0;
};
class BaseImpl : public IBase
{
public:
virtual void f1() override {}
};
class DerivedImpl : public BaseImpl, public IDerived
{
public:
virtual void f2() override {}
};
class BaseStub : public IBase
{
public:
BaseStub() { m_impl.reset(new BaseImpl()); }
virtual void f1() override { m_impl->f1(); }
private:
std::unique_ptr<BaseImpl> m_impl;
};
// But this also creates BaseStub::m_impl.
class DerivedStub : public BaseStub, public IDerived
{
public:
DerivedStub() { m_impl.reset(new DerivedImpl()); }
virtual void f2() override { m_impl->f2(); }
private:
std::unique_ptr<DerivedImpl> m_impl;
};