What is the difference between a pure virtual and a virtual - c++

I am modifying code that the grand-parent class is a pure virtual which include a pure virtual version of function XYZ ; the then parent class declares XYS as virtual and it has an implementaion for it. Then the child class declares XYZ as a regular function with a different implementation from that of the parent1 9which in itself is confusing to me). When I call the function XYZ from another object, which implementation gets executed? the parent one or the child one? Thanks

When I call the function XYZ from another object, which implementation gets executed? the parent one or the child one?
Let's find out:
struct A {
virtual void f() = 0;
};
struct B : A {
virtual void f() { cout << "B::f\n"; }
};
struct C : B {
virtual void f() { cout << "C::f\n"; }
};
int main() {
C().f();
return 0;
}

Pure virtual functions don't need a definition (as opposed to virtual functions), and they make their class abstract. Abstract classes can't have an object created from, except when they act as base class object.
Your confusion seems to center around the presence or absence of the virtual keyword. If a function is declared virtual in a base class, then a function of a derived class, whether or not you put a virtual keyword, will automatically become virtual if it has the same name, parameter types and constness.
So if you call XYZ on a grandparent* or parent* that actually points to a child object, then the XYZ of the child object will be executed.

A pure virtual function just means that no class with a pure virtual function can be instantiated. Once the parent class overrides it, it just becomes a normal virtual function. Once a function has been declared virtual in a base class, it is always virtual, regardless of whether or not the inheriting class defines it as virtual.
Edit: That means that calling it is just calling a virtual function like any other- that is, the most derived class's implementation will be called.

A pure virtual function usually has no implementation and creates the "abstractness" of the class.
The compiler will not let you create an instance of a class that is abstract. Any class that derives from this class remains abstract unless all the pure virtual functions it inherits have been implemented (and it doesn't add any new ones). Such a class is called concrete.
Note that a pure virtual function may be given an implementation (although it cannot be inlined for syntax reasons). In addition, you can have a pure virtual destructor, and then it must be given an implementation (even if it is an empty one).
You indicate a pure virtual function by adding =0 at the end thus:
virtual void foo(); // not pure
virtual void bar() = 0; // pure virtual

class sample
{
public:
virtual void fun(); //virtual function
virtual void sun()=0; //pure virtual function
};
Pure virtual function is declared by assigning 0, as done above. Providing definition for pure virtual functions is optional, while providing definition for virtual functions is compulsory, otherwise it will not compile. Also, you cannot create instance of a class that defines even a single pure virtual function.

A virtual function is one that can be overridden in a derived class.
A pure virtual function is one that has no implementation at all and therefore MUST be overridden in a derived class.
You cannot create an instance of a class with a pure virtual function, or a class that derives from it unless you override any pure virtual functions with your own implementation.

In the case of a virtual function, if you call xyz on an object of a child class, always the child version of xyz (Child::xyz()) will be executed.
It would not be a case with non-virtual overridden methods. Then if you had a pointer Parent* ptr = &child, ptr>xyz() would actually execute Parent::xyz(). But in your case it is Child::xyz(). That is why you use the virtual keyword.

Related

C++ Is a pure virtual function also a definition or only a declaration?

In a C++ programming course I have learned about the difference between definition and declaration. A function without a function body is a declaration and a function with a function body is a definition. Later I have learned about pure virtual functions. A pure virtual function doesn't have a function body but it is "initialized" with = 0;. Does that mean that a pure virtual function is a definition or is it considered as declaration only?
Edit: I don't think this is a duplicate of pure virtual function with implementation because the question "Does that mean that a pure virtual function is a definition or is it considered as declaration only?" is not answered.
A vitual function is function which is an inheritable and overridable
function which will support dynamic dispatch. Ideally this is what we
call runtime polymorphism. In a nutshell, the virtual function
provides a target function to be executed, which we have no idea at
the compile time. Suppose you extend a class having a virtual
function, you get the ability to use polymorphism to execute the
function in the derrived class, using a base class pointer.
More read on https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/virtual-functions-and-runtime-polymorphism-in-c-set-1-introduction/
A pure virtual function or pure virtual method is a virtual function
that is required to be implemented by a derived class if the derived
class is not abstract.
A point to note is, if you have a pure virtual function in a class, you cannot instantiate it as an object.
look at the following example
class Base {
public:
virtual string getType() = 0;
}
class Derived : public base {
public:
string getType();
}
string
derived::getType() {
//do necessary stuff <------------------ (1)
}
Base* myBase = new Derived(); // OK
myBase->getType() //this will call the logic at (1).That's in the derived class but not base
Base* myBase2 = new Base();//Error
And for your question, pure virtual function is a declaration. And does not need a definition.
*EDIT You can provide a default implementation but you have to override in the derived classes of this base class with pure virtual function *

Why in C++ 'virtual' and '=0' is both needed to describe a method is abstract?

As it is explained in The C++ programming language:
virtual void push(char c) = 0;
virtual void pop() = 0;
The word virtual means 'may be redefined later in a class derived from this one'
The =0 syntax says that some class derived from Stack must define the function.
So why =0 symbol is needed? Does it means that a derived class must define this function, and that's to say when there is no =0, some derived classes are not forced to define this method?
I'm confusing about this, need some help.
Your thoughts were right.
So why =0 symbol is needed? Does it means that a child class must
define this function, and that's to say when there is no =0, some
child classes are not forced to define this method?
Basically you can:
Make a method non-virtual
This doesn't allow any class deriving from the class that implements the method (through either public or protected) to change the method's behavior.
Make a method virtual
This allows (but doesn't enforce) any class deriving from the class that implements the method (through either public or protected) to change the behavior of the method in the base class. You don't even have to call the original base class method anymore so you can make severe changes if needed.
Make a method pure virtual ( virtual = 0 )
This enforces that any class deriving from the class that implements the method (through either public or protected) to implement some kind of behavior/body for this method. If the deriving class does not provide an implementation then this class will instantly become abstract itself. This allows to omit the behavior/body of the method in the base class and because of this it is not allowed to directly instantiate a class that has one or more pure virtual methods (abstract class).
So why =0 symbol is needed?
Consider the following:
struct foo
{
virtual void some() const { cout << "foo" << endl; }
};
struct bar : public foo
{
virtual void some() const { cout << "bar << endl; }
};
struct baz : public foo
{
}
Suppose you have a pointer foo *p pointing to some object, and you call p->some().
If p points to a bar object, it will print "bar".
If p points to a baz object, it will print "foo".
In some cases, this might not be what you want. You might want to specify that any derived class needs to override it. The =0 does that.
The purpose of an abstract class (those classes have pure virtual method, =0) is to provide an appropriate base class from which other classes can inherit. Abstract classes cannot be used to instantiate objects and serves only as an interface.
Thus, if a subclass of an abstract class needs to be instantiated, it has to implement each of the virtual functions, which means that it supports the interface declared by the abstract class.
That is the base concept for interface.
In short, it a way to be sure a derivative class will implement those methods from the base class.
So why =0 symbol is needed?
Virtual function with sequence = 0 is known as pure virtual function, (the sequence = 0 is known as pure-specifier), it makes the class an abstract class, which can't be instantiated. For the derived classes, if they want to make it possible to be instantiated, they have to implement the pure virtual function.
No objects of an abstract class can be created. Abstract types cannot be used as parameter types, as function return types, or as the type of an explicit conversion. Pointers and references to an abstract class can be declared.
For example,
class Stack {
virtual void push(char c) = 0;
};
...
Stack s; // Fail, Stack is an abstract class
and if
class Stack {
virtual void push(char c);
};
...
Stack s; // Fine, if you won't call `push()` on it.
First consider what is the reason to use virtual methods.
1.Interface(polymorphism).
Interface in C++ is a pure virtual class, which means, that all of its methods are pure virtual (like these two you've mentioned above), it has an virtual destructor and has no constructor (it's obvious, because we can't create its instances). It also shouldn't have any data.
Let's define an interface (pure abstract class in C++):
class Interface
{
public:
virtual ~Interface(){}
virtual void somePublicMethod() = 0;
};
And define the class, which is an implementation of interface:
class Implementation : public Interface
{
public:
~Implementation() override {}
void somePublicMethod() override {}
};
If you define another pure virtual method in interface:
virtual void anotherPublicMethod() = 0;
And you don't override it in implementation you will receive compilation error, when you will declare object of Implementation type, because real Implementation object must have definitions (bodies) for all derived methods.
Yo can also define default behavior of some interface's method:
void Interface::somePublicMethod()
{
//define default behavior here
}
And call it in derived class:
void Implementation::somePublicMethod()
{
Interface::somePublicMethod();
}
How interface is used in polymorphism you will read in other topics.
2."Ordinary" Inheritance.
In "ordinary" inheritance you should use virtual methods instead of pure virtual ones, because you want to have instances of both Base class and Derived class(es). Virtual methods only indicates, that they could be overridden in derived class(es).
Conclusion
In general, if you want to have an instance of any class, this class must have all methods defined (so the must have bodies and it's obvious that they mustn't be pure virtual).

what's the necessity of the implementation of a pure virtual function

Pure virtual functions are a must-have property for abstract base classes. So no implementations should be made, which is very intuitive to understand. But Recently I came to know that pure virtual functions can still be defined later and be invoked statically(not by object instances). I can't think up a reason for this. If one virtual function is defined as pure, then what's the reason to implement it?
class A{
public:
...
virtual void interface() = 0; //Pure Virtual functions
...
}
void A::interface() //Implementation
{
cout<<"This the implementation for A interface";
}
I am curious about the logic behind this. Why is c++ designed like this way?
It might make sense to have a "default" implementation, which concrete classes can use if it's useful to them. They still need to override it, but can call the base-class version non-virtually:
struct B : A {
void interface() {
A::interface(); // call the default implementation
// and maybe do some B-specific things too
}
};
I can't think up a reason for this. If one virtual function is defined as pure, then what's the reason to implement it?
The purpose of a pure virtual function is not to prohibit definitions. It is to mark the class as uninstantiable.
Providing a definition may be useful for deriving classes:
struct A
{
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
void A::foo()
{
/* some common logic here */
}
struct B : A
{
virtual void foo() overrides
{
bar();
A::foo();
}
void bar();
};
struct C : A
{
virtual void foo() overrides
{
baz();
A::foo();
}
void baz();
};
A pure virtual function simply means that the function must be overidden by all derived classes it does not mean that the function cannot/should not have a implementation of its own. Two most obvious cases for such a pure virtual function having implementation are:
A Derived class implementation can call Base class implementation
Sometimes you would want a base class to be made abstract but there is no method which you can mark as pure virtual in such a case a destructor is most obvious choice but in such a destructor still needs a implementation.
interface() = 0 means derived classes must provide an implementation, so the definition effects derived classes, but the base class is permitted to have an implementation of the method so that derived classes can always call base::interface().
You apparently completely misunderstood the meaning of the term "statically" in this context.
Yes, pure virtual functions can still have bodies, i.e. they can still be defined.
And no, you cannot invoke such function "without an object instance", as you seem to incorrectly believe. A pure virtual function with a body is still a non-static member function. It still requires an object instance to be invoked.
When someone says that such function can be invoked "statically", it means that it can be called directly, without using virtual dispatch mechanism. Function calls that go through virtual dispatch are sometimes called "virtual calls" or "dynamic calls", while direct function calls are sometimes called "static calls". The term "static" in this context assumes a completely different meaning, not connected in any way to static member functions.
In C++ language a direct non-virtual (i.e. "static") call can be performed explicitly by specifying a qualified member name in the call. For example, if class B derives from your class A, then inside some method B::foo() you can use the following syntax
void B::foo() {
A::interface(); // <- qualified method name
}
which performs a direct call to the implementation of A::interface() you provided. For an object b of type B the same kind of call can be performed as
B b;
b.A::interface(); // <- qualified method name
In both cases the call is performed for a specific object (*this in the first example, and b in the second).
Pretty much the same thing happens implicitly when destructors of derived classes call destructors of base class, which is why you will often encounter this situation with pure virtual destructors (i.e. they are declared as pure virtual, yet have a body).

Why does it make sense to give definition for a pure virtual function?

Scott said on Effective C++, 3rd Edition, pg. 43 that to make an abstract class, we just need to give it a pure virtual destructor:
class AWOV { // AWOV = "Abstract w/o Virtuals"
public:
virtual ~AWOV() = 0; // declare pure virtual destructor
};
Then, he went on said that there is one twist: we must provide a definition for the pure virtual destructor:
AWOV::~AWOW() {} // definition of pure virtual dtor
My question is, by specifiying = 0, for pure virtual functions, we are saying that the function cannot have any definition for the class where this pure virtual function is declared.
Why is it OK to provide a definition (even it is empty) for the pure virtual destructor here?
"we are saying that the function cannot have any definition for the class where this pure virtual function is declared."
That's not what pure virtual means. Pure virtual only means that the containing class cannot be instantiated (is abstract), so it has to be subclassed, and subclasses must override the method. E.g.,
struct A {
virtual ~A() = 0;
};
A::~A() {}
struct B : A {};
int main()
{
A a; // error
B b; // ok
}
Here, the B destructor is implicitly defined. If it was another method that is pure virtual, you'd have to explicitly override it:
struct A {
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
void A::foo() {}
struct B : A {};
int main()
{
B b; // error
}
Providing a definition for a pure virtual method is desirable when the base class must be abstract but still provide some default behavior.
In the specific case of a destructor, it has to be provided because it will be called automatically when subclass instances are destroyed. A program that tries to instantiate a subclass of a class with a pure virtual destructor without a definition will not pass the linker.
Making it pure forces derived (non-abstract) classes to implement their own.
Providing an implementation allows derived classes to invoke base class behavior (which destructors do by default).
There are 2 cases.
Pure virtual destructor
This case is specifically treated by the standard.
12.4 Destructors [class.dtor]
9) A destructor can be declared virtual (10.3) or pure virtual (10.4); if any objects of that class or any
derived class are created in the program, the destructor shall be defined. If a class has a base class with a
virtual destructor, its destructor (whether user- or implicitly-declared) is virtual.
The case of the destructor is different because all destructors are called in an inheritance hierearchy (assuming correct deletion) in reverse order of construction, even if not explicitly. So the base class destructor is called when the object gets deleted - that's why it needs an implementation.
Pure virtual method
These differ from destructors in that they're not required to be implemented, nor do they need an implementation. The difference for the missing requirement is that when a Derived::foo() gets called, it doesn't automatically call Base::foo() (not that it could, since it can or can not be implemented).
Why you would want to implement a pure virtual method depends on the case. I look at the pure specifier as a hint to the programmer, as opposed to related to the logic. It tells you - the programmer - that you should implement that method. It doesn't really matter if the base class has an implementation or not.
by specifiying = 0, for pure virtual functions, we are saying that the function cannot have any definition for the class where this pure virtual function is declared.
Not really. You're saying derived non-abstract classes have to override that function. This doesn't prevent you from implementing it yourself.
This is not necessary for all pure virtual functions. Not at all.
This way, the derived classes will still be forced to override the implementation, but there will be a default implementation in the base class, in case you need to call it. And that's the case here - because you're dealing with a destructor: when a derived object is being destroyed, its destructor is called and its base classes destructors are called as well. That's why you need an implementation for A::~A.
By making a function pure virtual we force the user of the class to replace the function with another in the derived class.
The base class function can still be called with BaseClass::myfunction(...)
Now the base class might want to provide some core functionality that the derived class may use if it chooses to do so.
Correct answer:
Suppose there are 2 pure virtual functions in class. Now assume that both have implementation. The reason for providing implementation for PVF is that the Base class method can act as default behavior if Base class is derived by child by implementing these PVF methods(to make class as concrete)

Pure virtual destructor definition inside class gives compilation error

The pure virtual destructor in base class should have a definition. Otherwise compiler will generate a call to base class destructor from the derived class destructor during link-time and will cause a link-error.
I tried to define the pure virtual destructor inside the base class like below:
class base
{
public:
base()
{
cout << "constructor in base class\n";
}
virtual ~base()=0
{}
};
This gave the compilation error:
error: pure-specifier on function-definition
Then i tried to define the function outside the base class like below:
class base
{
public:
base()
{
cout << "constructor in base class\n";
}
virtual ~base()=0;
};
base::~base()
{
}
This removes the compilation error and it behaves as my understanding.
But my question is how does defining the pure virtual destructor outside the base class removes the compilation error?
Your second example is correct.
A lot of the other answers assume that it is illegal to have a pure virtual function with a default implementation, however that is incorrect.
In the case of a pure virtual destructor you must have a definition (see the link in xmoex answer).
It is true that:
ยง10.4/2 a function declaration cannot provide both a pure-specifier
and a definition
However, as you noticed it possible to provide a definition outside of the declaration.
i looked at this page:
http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/031.htm
and from my understanding a pure virtual destructor must have a definition (even an empty one) as every derived class has to call the base classes destructor
It is invalid syntax to write:
virtual ~base()=0
{}
If you want to supply implementation of a pure virtual member function, you should do it outside of the class. Most of the time you should not do this, since pure virtual functions should never be called anyhow. It is however possible to define implementation for pure virtual functions.
In fact, a pure virtual destructor must have an implementation. This is because destructors of all base classes are called on object destruction regardless of whether destructor in a given class is pure virtual or not.
Thus, if you create an instance of any of the classes derived from base then at some point destructors of all classes to which the object belongs will be called including the base::~base() destructor. If you do not define it, the linker will not find a required symbol and will complain.
The destructor is the only method that even if it is pure virtual, has to have an implementation in order for the class it's defined in to be useful. So in contrast to #Kiril's answer I would say that pure virtual functions can have implementations.
Somewhat off topic :
struct base {
virtual void func() = 0;
};
void base::func() { /* default implementation */ }
class derived : public base{
void func() { base::func(); } // have to explicitly call default implementation.
};
Pure virtual methods can have implementations, but they make the base class abstract and force deriving classes to overwrite those methods.
Say you have a pointer member in the base class. You want to delete it on the destructor but also make the class abstract - so you implement to pure virtual destructor.
This is an implementation detail - the fact that the destructor is implemented should't be visible from the outside.