Say I have the following classes in C++, and I want to inspect their inheritance:
Vehicle
Motorcar is a Vehicle
Aircraft is a Vehicle
Biplane is an Aircraft is a Vehicle
Helicopter is an Aircraft is a Vehicle.
I want to write a method getClassLineage() to do the following:
Biplane b;
cout << b.getClassLineage() << endl; // prints "Vehicle--Aircraft--Biplane"
Helicopter h;
cout << h.getClassLineage() << endl; // prints "Vehicle--Aircraft--Helicopter"
Motorcar m;
cout << m.getClassLineage() << endl; // prints "Vehicle--Motorcar"
It seems like there should be a simple recursive way to do this by writing it once in the super-class, without duplicating an essentially identical method in every single one of the derived classes.
Assume we're willing to declare (pseudocode)Helicopter.className = "Helicopter" and
typedef Aircraft baseclass in each of the derived classes, but trying to avoid copying and pasting getClassLineage().
Is there an elegant way to write this?
(Thank you for your thoughts!)
Solution 1
IF you're okay with the decorated name, then you can write a free function template:
struct Vehicle {};
struct Aircraft : Vehicle { typedef Vehicle super; };
struct Helicopter : Aircraft { typedef Aircraft super; };
template<typename T>
string getClassLineage()
{
static string lineage = string(typeid(T).name()) +" - " + getClassLineage<typename T::super>();
return lineage;
}
template<>
string getClassLineage<Vehicle>()
{
static string lineage = string(typeid(Vehicle).name());
return lineage;
}
int main() {
cout << getClassLineage<Helicopter>() << endl;
return 0;
}
Output (decorated names):
10Helicopter - 8Aircraft - 7Vehicle
See at ideone: http://www.ideone.com/5PoJ0
You can strip off the decoration if you want. But it would be compiler specific! Here is a version that makes use of remove_decoration function to strip off the decoration, and then the output becomes :
Helicopter - Aircraft - Vehicle
By the way, as I said, the implementation of remove_decoration function is a compiler specific; also, this can be written in more correct way, as I don't know all cases which GCC considers, while mangling the class names. But I hope, you get the basic idea.
Solution 2
If you're okay with redefining the function in each derived class, then here is a simple solution:
struct Vehicle
{
string getClassLineage() const { return "Vehicle"; }
};
struct Aircraft : Vehicle
{
string getClassLineage() const { return Vehicle::getClassLineage()+" - Aircraft"; }
};
struct Helicopter : Aircraft
{
string getClassLineage() const { return Aircraft::getClassLineage()+" - Helicopter "; }
};
int main() {
Helicopter heli;
cout << heli.getClassLineage() << endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
Vehicle - Aircraft - Helicopter
See output at ideone: http://www.ideone.com/Z0Tws
If you want a recursive-like approach you can do it with virtual functions and explicit scoped function calls:
struct vehicle {
virtual std::string lineage() const { return "vehicle"; }
};
struct aircraft : vehicle {
typedef vehicle base;
virtual std::string lineage() const { return base::lineage() + "--aircraft"; }
};
struct biplane : aircraft {
typedef aircraft base;
virtual std::string lineage() const { return base::lineage() + "--biplane"; }
};
struct nieuport17 : biplane {
typedef biplane base;
virtual std::string lineage() const { return base::lineage() + "--nieuport17"; }
};
int main() {
biplane b;
aircraft const & a = b;
std::cout << a.lineage() << std::endl;
}
How does it work? When you call v.lineage() as it is a virtual function it the dynamic dispatch will make its way into biplane::lineage() as that is the actual type of the object. Inside that function there is a qualified call to its parent's lineage() function. Qualified calls do not use the dynamic dispatch mechanism, so the call will actually execute at the parents level. Basically this is what is going on:
a.lineage() -- dynamic dispatch -->
---> biplane::lineage()
\__ airplane::lineage()
\__ vehigcle::lineage()
<-- std::string("vehicle")
<-- std::string("vehicle") + "--airplane"
<-- std::string("vehicle--airplane") + "--biplane"
<--- std::string( "vehicle--airplane--biplane" )
[...]but trying to avoid copying and pasting getClassLineage().
As far as I know, that's not possible. C++ doesn't have reflection in and of itself, so the programmer has to do the work himself. The following C++0x version works under Visual Studio 2010, but I can't say for other compilers:
#include <string>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <iostream>
class Vehicle{
public:
virtual std::string GetLineage(){
return std::string(typeid(decltype(this)).name());
}
};
class Aircraft : public Vehicle{
public:
virtual std::string GetLineage(){
std::string lineage = std::string(typeid(decltype(this)).name());
lineage += " is derived from ";
lineage += Vehicle::GetLineage();
return lineage;
}
};
class Biplane : public Aircraft{
public:
virtual std::string GetLineage(){
std::string lineage = std::string(typeid(decltype(this)).name());
lineage += " is derived from ";
lineage += Aircraft::GetLineage();
return lineage;
}
};
class Helicopter : public Aircraft{
public:
virtual std::string GetLineage(){
std::string lineage = std::string(typeid(decltype(this)).name());
lineage += " is derived from ";
lineage += Aircraft::GetLineage();
return lineage;
}
};
int main(){
Vehicle v;
Aircraft a;
Biplane b;
Helicopter h;
std::cout << v.GetLineage() << std::endl;
std::cout << a.GetLineage() << std::endl;
std::cout << b.GetLineage() << std::endl;
std::cout << h.GetLineage() << std::endl;
std::cin.get();
return 0;
}
Output:
class Vehicle *
class Aircraft * is derived from class Vehicle *
class Biplane * is derived from class Aircraft *
class Helicopter * is derived from class Aircraft *
The output is slightly different at ideone, it drops the asterisk and decorates the name with a P at the beginning for pointer, but it works. Fun fact: trying to use typeid(decltype(*this)).name() crashed VS2010's compiler for me.
You need a static field to store the lineage, and each class will have its own lineage appended in its own static field.
If you are thinking about using typeid() or something like that, which is more complex but would avoid the repetition of the getClassLineage() method, remember that the name field attribute is annoyingly (the reason for this is beyond me) not the true name of the class, but a string that can be that name or any kind of mangled name (i.e., undefined representation).
You could easily apply a recursive aproach as the one you suggest if we were using Python or any other prototype-based programming language, in which inheritance is implemented by delegation, and thus the "inheritance path" can be followed.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class Vehicle {
public:
static const std::string Lineage;
Vehicle() {}
virtual ~Vehicle() {}
virtual const std::string &getClassLineage()
{ return Vehicle::Lineage; }
};
class Motorcar : public Vehicle {
public:
static const std::string Lineage;
Motorcar() {}
virtual ~Motorcar() {}
virtual const std::string &getClassLineage()
{ return Motorcar::Lineage; }
};
class Helicopter : public Vehicle {
public:
static const std::string Lineage;
Helicopter() {}
virtual ~Helicopter() {}
virtual const std::string &getClassLineage()
{ return Helicopter::Lineage; }
};
class Biplane : public Vehicle {
public:
static const std::string Lineage;
Biplane() {}
virtual ~Biplane() {}
virtual const std::string &getClassLineage()
{ return Biplane::Lineage; }
};
const std::string Vehicle::Lineage = "Vehicle";
const std::string Motorcar::Lineage = "Vehicle::Motorcar";
const std::string Helicopter::Lineage = "Vehicle::Helicopter";
const std::string Biplane::Lineage = "Vehicle::Biplane";
int main()
{
Biplane b;
std::cout << b.getClassLineage() << std::endl; // prints "Vehicle--Aircraft--Biplane"
Helicopter h;
std::cout << h.getClassLineage() << std::endl; // prints "Vehicle--Aircraft--Helicopter"
Motorcar m;
std::cout << m.getClassLineage() << std::endl; // prints "Vehicle--Motorcar"
return 0;
}
#include <iostream>
#include <ios>
#include <iomanip>
#include <fstream>
#include <cstdio>
#include <list>
#include <sstream>
using namespace std;
static const char *strVehicle = "Vehicle";
static const char *strMotorcar = "Motorcar";
static const char *strHelicopter = "Helicopter";
class Vehicle
{
private:
const char *ClassName;
protected:
int Lineage;
list<const char *> MasterList;
public:
Vehicle(const char *name = strVehicle)
{
MasterList.push_back(name);
}
virtual ~Vehicle() {}
virtual int getClassLineage() const
{
return Lineage;
}
string getName() const
{
list<const char *>::const_iterator it = MasterList.begin();
ostringstream ss( ios_base::in | ios_base::out );
while(it != MasterList.end())
{
ss << *(it++);
if(it != MasterList.end())
ss << " --> ";
}
ss << endl;
ss << ends;
return ss.str();
}
};
class Motorcar : public Vehicle
{
private:
const char *ClassName;
public:
Motorcar(const char *name = strMotorcar)
{
MasterList.push_back(name);
}
virtual ~Motorcar() {}
using Vehicle::getClassLineage;
using Vehicle::getName;
};
class Helicopter : public Vehicle
{
private:
const char *ClassName;
public:
Helicopter(const char *name = strHelicopter)
{
MasterList.push_back(name);
}
virtual ~Helicopter() {}
using Vehicle::getClassLineage;
using Vehicle::getName;
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
Helicopter h;
Motorcar m;
wcout << "Heli: " << h.getName().c_str() << endl;
wcout << "Motorcar: " << m.getName().c_str() << endl;
return 0;
}
If using typeid you don't need to hardcode strings (class' names). Solution for your problem could be:
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;
class Vehicle
{
public:
Vehicle();
string GetClassLineage(){return strName;}
protected:
string strName;
};
Vehicle::Vehicle() : strName(typeid(*this).name())
{
// trim "class "
strName = strName.substr(strName.find(" ") + 1);
}
class Motorcar : public Vehicle
{
public:
Motorcar();
};
Motorcar::Motorcar()
{
string strMyName(typeid(*this).name());
strMyName = strMyName.substr(strMyName.find(" ") + 1);
strName += " -- ";
strName += strMyName;
}
int main()
{
Motorcar motorcar;
cout << motorcar.GetClassLineage() << endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
Vehicle -- Motorcar
Related
I have something like this
class myclass
{};
int main()
{
std::string mystring("myclass");
return 0;
}
And I want to do something like std::shared_ptr<mystring> mysharedptr; that is equal to std::shared_ptr<myclass> mysharedptr;. Do you have an idea of how I should proceed?
I want to be able to do something like this because I have 8 classes and I should create a pointer depending of the name. In order to not have a huge structure with a lot of if/else if, I was wondering if there is a solution.
So to answer my question (this works) :
#include <map>
#include <memory>
#include <string>
class Base
{
public:
using Ptr = std::shared_ptr<Base>;
};
class DerivedA : public Base
{
public:
DerivedA() { std::cout << "DerivedA" << std::endl; }
};
class DerivedB : public Base
{
public:
DerivedB() { std::cout << "DerivedB" << std::endl; }
};
template<typename T>
std::shared_ptr<Base> myCreate()
{
return std::make_shared<T>();
}
int main()
{
static const std::map<std::string, std::shared_ptr<Base> (*)()> myMap
{
{"DerivedA", &myCreate<DerivedA>},
{"DerivedB", &myCreate<DerivedB>}
};
Base::Ptr first, second;
first = myMap.find("DerivedA")->second();
std::cout << first << std::endl;
second = myMap.find("DerivedA")->second();
std::cout << second << std::endl;
return 0;
}
I need to implement one abstract class, three its concrete subclasses, class which goal to create one of this three classes instances and last class executor of three classes. Requirements are c++98, and not to use if/elseif/else to construct class instance, like i did in a Maker class method make Form. What mechanism i need to avoid if / elseif / else?
For example:
test.h
#ifndef TEST_H
#define TEST_H
#include <iostream>
class Executor {
private:
const std::string name;
public:
Executor(const std::string &name = "") {};
const std::string getname() const {return name;}
};
class BForm {
private:
const std::string _name;
public:
BForm(const std::string &name = "") : _name(name) {};
virtual ~BForm() {};
virtual void execute(const Executor &src) = 0;
const std::string getname() {return _name;}
virtual const std::string gettarget() = 0;
};
class Form1 : public BForm{
private:
std::string _target;
public:
Form1(const std::string &target = "") : BForm("form1"), _target(target) {};
virtual ~Form1() {};
virtual void execute(const Executor &src) {
std::cout << src.getname() << " exec form1 target:" << _target << std::endl;
}
virtual const std::string gettarget() {return _target;}
};
class Form2 : public BForm {
private:
std::string _target;
public:
Form2(const std::string &target = "") : BForm("form2"), _target(target) {};
virtual ~Form2() {};
virtual void execute(const Executor &src) {
std::cout << src.getname() << " exec form2 target:" << _target << std::endl;
};
virtual const std::string gettarget() {return _target;}
};
class Form3 : public BForm {
private:
std::string _target;
public:
Form3(const std::string &target = "") : BForm("form3"), _target(target) {};
virtual ~Form3() {};
virtual void execute(const Executor &src) {
std::cout << src.getname() << " exec form3 target:" << _target << std::endl;
};
virtual const std::string gettarget() {return _target;}
};
class Maker {
public:
BForm *makeForm(const std::string &name, const std::string &target)
{
/* need to avoid */
if (name == "form1")
return new Form1(target);
else if (name == "form2")
return new Form2(target);
else
return new Form3(target);
}
};
#endif
main.cpp
#include "test.h"
int main() {
Maker maker;
BForm *form;
Executor exec("executor");
form = maker.makeForm("form1", "A");
std::cout << form->getname() << " " << form->gettarget() << std::endl;
form->execute(exec);
delete form;
return (0);
}
You could typedef a pointer to function and then use a map from string to this type (pointer to function). And then use your parameter with indexer syntax to access the correct pointer to function.
Here is an example:
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
// The class definitions with a virtual function hello() common to all
class Base { public: virtual void hello() = 0; };
class Derived1 : public Base { public: void hello() { std::cout << "Derived1"; } };
class Derived2 : public Base { public: void hello() { std::cout << "Derived2"; } };
// The object making functions
Base* Maker1() { return new Derived1; }
Base* Maker2() { return new Derived2; }
int main()
{
// In C++98, without auto, it's worthwhile to typedef complicated types.
// The first one is a function type returning a pointer to Base...
typedef Base* MakerT();
// ... the second one is a map type projecting strings to such function pointers
typedef std::map<std::string, MakerT*> StrToMakerT;
/// The actual map projecting strings to maker function pointers
StrToMakerT strToMaker;
// Fill the map
strToMaker["D1"] = &Maker1;
strToMaker["D2"] = &Maker2;
// user input
std::string choice;
// as long as output works, input works, and the user didn't say "Q":
while (std::cout << "Please input 'D1' or 'D2' or 'Q' for quit: "
&& std::cin >> choice
&& choice != "Q")
{
// Prevent adding new entries to the map foir unknown strings
if (strToMaker.find(choice) != strToMaker.end())
{
// Simply look the function up again, the iterator type is too
// cumbersome to write in C++98
Base* b = (*strToMaker[choice])();
b->hello();
std::cout << '\n';
delete b;
}
else
{
std::cout << "Didn't find your choice, try again.\n";
}
}
std::cout << "Thank you, good bye\n";
}
I'm still learning how the abstract classes work and I want know if I'm on the right track or not.
This is my simplified program :
class CPerson
{
public:
CPerson() = default;
virtual int getMat() = 0;
};
class CStudent : public CPerson
{
public:
CStudent() = default;
CStudent(int MatriculationNr) { this->MatriculationNr = MatriculationNr;}
int getMat() { return MatriculationNr;}
private:
int MatriculationNr;
};
class CTeacher : public CPerson
{
public:
CTeacher() = default;
int getMat(){ return 0;}
private:
std::string name;
};
int main()
{
std::vector<CPerson*> test;
test.push_back(new CStudent(9898));
CTeacher *a = new CTeacher();
return 0;
}
In class CTeacher, I don't have the same private variable like CStudent (MatriculationNr) so I returned 0. The program is working normally. But is what I'm doing here correct or not?
Another question related to the abstract classes : Assuming we use virtual int& getMat() = 0; (with a reference), what should we return in CTeacher class? 0 will not work in this case, right?
Should we initalize a variable with 0 so that we can return it in this function, or is there a better implementation?
Below code sample should answer your question in a rather modern C++ way.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
// I have added a `std::string name` to the CPerson class and
// a `std::string subject` to the CTeachers class
// so both derived classes, CStudent and CTeacher have a name
// of the person involved and each derived class has
// something only it needs, MatrikulationNr for CStudent and
// Subject of teaching for CTeacher in order to deliver a more
// complete and more clearifying answer.
class CPerson {
int dummyMatriculationNr{ 0 };
std::string dummySubject{ "noTeacher" };
protected:
std::string name;
public:
std::string getName() { return name; }
virtual int& getMat() { return dummyMatriculationNr; }
virtual std::string getSubject() { return dummySubject; }
};
class CStudent : public CPerson {
int MatriculationNr{ 0 };
public:
CStudent() = delete; // we dont want anyone using this constructor
explicit CStudent(std::string name, int MatriculationNr) :
MatriculationNr{ MatriculationNr } {
this->name = name;
}
int& getMat() { return MatriculationNr; }
};
class CTeacher : public CPerson {
std::string subject{ "" }; // Subject of teaching
public:
CTeacher() = delete;
explicit CTeacher(std::string name, std::string subject) :
subject{ subject } {
this->name = name;
}
std::string getSubject() { return subject; }
};
int main() {
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<CPerson>> vp;
vp.push_back(std::make_unique<CStudent>("aStudentsName", 8989 ));// or emplace_back
vp.push_back(std::make_unique<CTeacher>("aTeachersName", "mathematics"));
for (auto& e : vp)
std::cout << "Name: " << e->getName() << " MatrNo: " << e->getMat()
<< " TeachingSubject: " << e->getSubject() << std::endl;
}
I hope above sample answers your question. However, using the keyword virtual creates a virtual function table, often called vtable, at runtime which costs performance and is considered not to be high performance computing anymore.
Its also confusing to have a getMat() function available in all derived classes when you need it only in one, the CStudents derived class. Although meaningless in any other class, this function still returns some dummy value there. That can be irritating. Same for the getSubject() function in CTeacher. See the output:
Name: aStudentsName MatrNo: 8989 TeachingSubject: noTeacher
Name: aTeachersName MatrNo: 0 TeachingSubject: mathematics
Consider to solve your question without any keyword virtual and having getMat() and int MatriculationNr in CStudents only and not in the base class at all. I know it is tempting to use virtual but its something to rather avoid as long as possible. For example, MFC, Microsoft Foundation Classes, the maybe biggest class inheritance project ever written, did not use virtual at all!
Consider the following code as an example:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <variant>
// a code version without virtual
class CPerson {
protected:
std::string name;
public:
std::string getName() { return name; }
};
class CStudent : public CPerson {
int MatriculationNr{ 0 };
public:
CStudent() = delete; // we dont want anyone using this constructor
explicit CStudent(std::string name, int MatriculationNr) : MatriculationNr{ MatriculationNr } {
this->name = name;
}
int& getMat() { return MatriculationNr; }
};
class CTeacher : public CPerson {
std::string subject{ "" }; // Subject of teaching
public:
CTeacher() = delete;
explicit CTeacher(std::string name, std::string subject) : subject{ subject } {
this->name = name;
}
std::string getSubject() { return subject; }
};
int main() {
std::vector<CStudent> vs; // auto-deleted through RAII
std::vector<CTeacher> vt; // and good for serialisation and or database communication
vs.push_back(CStudent{ "aStudentsName", 9898 });
vt.push_back(CTeacher{ "aTeachersName", "mathematics" });
for (auto s : vs)
std::cout << s.getName() << " " << s.getMat() << std::endl;
for (auto t : vt)
std::cout << t.getName() << " " << t.getSubject() << std::endl << std::endl;
// and here we are done already,
// not listing the two different types in one vector
// but just using a vector for each derived class
//
// but lets try put them now into one vector
// using a more modern way through std::variant
// which keps all data in the vector and not only the
// CPerson part.
std::vector<std::variant<CStudent, CTeacher>> people;
// we could, for example, copy from above vectors
for (auto e : vs)
people.push_back(e);
for (auto e : vt)
people.push_back(e);
// we could insert new ones
people.push_back(CStudent { "aStudentsName1", 9899 });
people.push_back(CTeacher { "aTeachersName1", "physics" });
// and take that vector apart again
std::cout << std::endl << "Output from vector of variant:" << std::endl;
for (auto& e : people)
if (std::holds_alternative<CStudent>(e)) {
CStudent& s = std::get<CStudent>(e);
std::cout << s.getName() << " " << s.getMat() << std::endl;
}
else if (std::holds_alternative<CTeacher>(e)) {
CTeacher& s = std::get<CTeacher>(e);
std::cout << s.getName() << " " << s.getSubject() << std::endl;
}
}
There are numerous ways to achieve the goal to avoid virtual and I hope you did enjoy the above.
Everything in the code above seems alright. Just make sure to delete both objects after using them (the CStudent and the CTeacher).
I'm writing some code to show inheritance.
In doing so, i want to illustrate it by having a base class that contains a vector of pointers that can hold object pointers of the derived class.
I'm getting this error that the "Child class is undeclared" in the base function "void addChild(string nm, string sm)" in the Parents class (base class). I do understand that it maybe out of scope in the base class.
Can someone provide me with a solution to this where i can still be able to instantiate an object of the derived class from within the base class.
I want to have everything done within the base class.
Please clarify if this is ok and is a good practice. If not, please suggest some ideas.
Here's my code:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class Parents // base class
{
vector <Parents*> fam;
protected:
string firstName;
string lastName;
public:
Parents()
{
//default constructor
}
Parents(string fn, string ln)
{
firstName = fn;
lastName = ln;
}
void displayChildren()
{
if (fam.empty())
{
cout << "Vector is empty" << endl;
}
else
{
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < fam.size(); i++)
{
std::cout, fam.at(i);
}
}
}
void displayParentsInfo(Parents& const par)
{
cout << "First name : " << par.firstName << endl;
cout << "Last name : " << par.lastName << endl;
}
void addChild(string nm, string sm)
{
Child* c1 = new Child(nm, sm);
fam.push_back(c1);
}
};
class Child : public Parents //derived class
{
string firstname;
string surname;
public:
Child()
{
//default constructor
}
Child(string a, string b)
{
firstname = a;
surname = b;
}
//~Child()
//{
//destructor called
//}
void displayChildInfo(Child & const c)
{
cout << "Child's firstname : " << c.firstname;
cout << "Child's surname : " << c.surname;
}
};
Cheers!
Just move the definition of the function out of the definition of the class:
class Parents // base class
{
...
void addChild(string nm, string sm);
};
class Child : public Parents //derived class
{
...
};
void Parents::addChild(string nm, string sm)
{
Parents* c1 = new Child(nm, sm);
fam.push_back(c1);
}
As for good practice, it might be better to have a non-member function that prepares the Child and returns a pointer to it, and add something like:
void Parents::addToFam(Parents* c1)
{
fam.push_back(c1);
}
It's hard to explain exactly what I want to do here, but I have a base class and two classes which inherit this base class. Both classes which inherit it have their own unique members. I want to be able to pass both to a method, and have that method detect which it is, then access their unique members. I can't assume there will only be two classes which inherit it, so i'm looking for something of a more general solution.
Here is an example of what I'd like to do:
#include <iostream>
class Base {
public:
int _type;
Base() { }
};
class First : public Base {
public:
int _first_only;
First() { }
};
class Second : public Base {
public:
int _second_only;
Second() { }
};
void test (Base b) {
std::cout << "Type: " << b._type << std::endl;
if(b._type==1) {
std::cout << "First\n";
// Want to be able to do this
std::cout << "Val: " << (First)b._first_only << std::endl;
} else if(b._type==2) {
std::cout << "Second\n";
// And this
std::cout << "Val: " << (Second)b._second_only << std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
First f;
f._first_only=1;
f._type=1;
Second s;
s._type=2;
s._second_only=2;
test(f);
test(s);
}
This is similar to others answers:
You can write polymorphic classes to get this behavior using virtual functions.
Pass the Dervied class objects either by pointer or by reference to get polymorphic behaviour. Otherwise it will lead to object slicing. Your test() function leads to object slicing.
This code may also help you. You can see that there are different ways to print the type. I used GetBaseType(), GetDerivedType() and GetType(). Among these GetType() method is convenient for you case. There are two constructors for convenience. Constructors allow to initialize data members.
class Base {
private:
int _type;
public:
Base(int type) : _type(type) { }
int GetBaseType() { return _type; }
virtual int GetDerivedType() = 0;
virtual int GetType() { return _type; }
};
class First : public Base {
private:
int _first_only;
public:
First() : Base(1), _first_only(1) { }
First(int first_only) : Base(first_only), _first_only(first_only) { }
int GetDerivedType() { return _first_only; }
virtual int GetType() { return _first_only; }
};
class Second : public Base {
private:
int _second_only;
public:
Second() : Base(2), _second_only(2) { }
Second(int second_only) : Base(second_only), _second_only(second_only) { }
int GetDerivedType() { return _second_only; }
virtual int GetType() { return _second_only; }
};
void test (Base &b) {
std::cout << "Type: " << b.GetBaseType() << std::endl;
std::cout << "Type: " << b.Base::GetType() << std::endl;
std::cout << "Dervied type: \n";
std::cout << "Val: " << b.GetDerivedType() << std::endl;
std::cout << "Val: " << b.GetType() << std::endl;
}
int main() {
First f(1);
Second s(2);
test(f);
test(s);
First f1;
Second s1;
test(f1);
test(s1);
}
Either declare a virtual function in Base
Move the common members types from First and Second into Base.
For your specific problem, 2nd option is better:
class Base {
public:
int _member; // have getter() method, if '_member' is private
Base() { }
};
Inside, test():
void test (Base &b) { // <--- practice to pass by reference if copy is not needed
// use b._member;
};
Your code does not work polymorphically, because you are passing the function-parameter by value, which results in slicing.
If you have a method that does different things for different types, consider overloading it for each of these types.
Three things I'd do:
In general switching on type codes is not considered good object oriented design: Instead pull the switched code into the classes.
I'd also set up the type tags in the constructor of the specific classes.
And as others have mentioned you need to pass the argument by reference to avoid slicing.
Here's what the code would look like:
#include <iostream>
class Base {
public:
int _type;
Base() { }
virtual void print_to_stream( std::ostream & os ) const =0;
};
class First : public Base {
public:
int _first_only;
First() { _type =1; }
void print_to_stream( std::ostream & os ) const
{
os<<"First\n";
os<<"Val: " << _first_only << std::endl;
}
};
class Second : public Base {
public:
int _second_only;
Second() { _type=2; }
void print_to_stream( std::ostream & os ) const
{
os << "Second\n";
os << "Val: " << _second_only << std::endl;
}
};
void test (Base & b)
{
std::cout << "Type: " << b._type << std::endl;
b.print_to_stream( std::cout );
}
int main() {
First f;
f._first_only=1;
Second s;
s._second_only=2;
test(f);
test(s);
}