C++ object without subclasses? - c++

Question

I was wondering if there is a way to declare an object in c++ to prevent it from being subclassed. Is there an equivalent to declaring a final object in Java?

Answer 1

From C++ FAQ, section on inheritance
This is known as making the class
"final" or "a leaf." There are three
ways to do it: an easy technical
approach, an even easier non-technical
approach, and a slightly trickier
technical approach.
The (easy) technical approach is to
make the class's constructors private
and to use the Named Constructor Idiom
to create the objects. No one can
create objects of a derived class
since the base class's constructor
will be inaccessible. The "named
constructors" themselves could return
by pointer if you want your objects
allocated by new or they could return
by value if you want the objects
created on the stack.
The (even easier) non-technical
approach is to put a big fat ugly
comment next to the class definition.
The comment could say, for example, //
We'll fire you if you inherit from
this class or even just /*final*/
class Whatever {...};. Some
programmers balk at this because it is
enforced by people rather than by
technology, but don't knock it on face
value: it is quite effective in
practice.
A slightly trickier technical approach
is to exploit virtual inheritance.
Since the most derived class's ctor
needs to directly call the virtual
base class's ctor, the following
guarantees that no concrete class can
inherit from class Fred:
class Fred;
class FredBase {
private:
friend class Fred;
FredBase() { }
};
class Fred : private virtual FredBase {
public:
...
};
Class Fred can access FredBase's ctor,
since Fred is a friend of FredBase,
but no class derived from Fred can
access FredBase's ctor, and therefore
no one can create a concrete class
derived from Fred.
If you are in extremely
space-constrained environments (such
as an embedded system or a handheld
with limited memory, etc.), you should
be aware that the above technique
might add a word of memory to
sizeof(Fred). That's because most
compilers implement virtual
inheritance by adding a pointer in
objects of the derived class. This is
compiler specific; your mileage may
vary.

Answer 2

No, there isn't really a need to. If your class doesn't have a virtual destructor it isn't safe to derive from it anyway. So don't give it one.
You can use this trick, copied from Stroustrup's FAQ:
class Usable;
class Usable_lock {
friend class Usable;
private:
Usable_lock() {}
Usable_lock(const Usable_lock&) {}
};
class Usable : public virtual Usable_lock {
// ...
public:
Usable();
Usable(char*);
// ...
};
Usable a;
class DD : public Usable { };
DD dd; // error: DD::DD() cannot access
// Usable_lock::Usable_lock(): private member
In C++0x (and as an extension, in MSVC) you can actually make it pretty clean:
template <typename T>
class final
{
private:
friend T; // C++0x, MSVC extension
final() {}
final(const final&) {}
};
class no_derived :
public virtual final<no_derived> // ah, reusable
{};

Answer 3

NO.
The closest you can come is to declare the constructors private, then provide a static factory method.

Answer 4

There is no direct equivalent language construct for this in C++.
The usual idiom to achieve this technically is to declare its constructor(s) private. To instantiate such a class, you need to define a public static factory method then.

Answer 5

As of C++11, you can add the final keyword to your class, eg
class CBase final
{
...
The main reason I can see for wanting to do this (and the reason I came looking for this question) is to mark a class as non subclassable so you can safely use a non-virtual destructor and avoid a vtable altogether.

Answer 6

There is no way really. The best you can do is make all your member functions non-virtual and all your member variables private so there is no advantage to be had from subclassing the class.