I know why I want to use private virtual functions, but how exactly can I implement them?
For example:
class Base{
[...]
private:
virtual void func() = 0;
[...]
};
class Derived1: public Base{
void func()
{ //short implementation is ok here
}
};
class Derived2: public Base{
void func(); //long implementation elsewhere (in cpp file)
};
[...]
void Derived2::func()
{ //long implementation
}
The first version is ok but not always possible.
Isn't the second version simply name hiding? How do you define the Base::func() of Derived2, if you cannot do it within the class declaration of Dereived2?
Thanks
How do you define the Base::func() of Derived2, if you cannot do it within the class declaration of Dereived2?
You don't define "Base::func() of Derived2" (whatever this might be), you define Derived2::func(). This compiles just fine for me:
#include <iostream>
class Base{
private:
virtual void foo() = 0;
public:
void bar() {foo();}
};
class Derived: public Base{
void foo();
};
void Derived::foo()
{
std::cout << "inside of 'Derived1::foo()'\n";
}
int main()
{
Derived d;
Base& b = d;
b.bar();
return 0;
}
What's your problem with it?
Polymorphism and accessibility are two separate concepts. You can always override a base class' private virtual function, but you won't be able to call the base class version from anywhere but the base class itself. Also, C++ FAQ Lite has a pretty lengthy entry on the subject.
For what I understand here, you're trying to do polymorphism.
There are 4 rules that you must follow to achieve polymorphism.
You must inherit from the base class.
Your functions must have the same name in every class.
You need the virtual keyword in front of every function, and the override keyword at the end of the child's fonctions.
You have to use a pointer on the main class, and use the "new" keyword to define it as a child type.
See this awesome wiki page for code example.
Hope this is what you wanted. ^^
Yours truly,
SeargX
Related
Is there any point to making virtual member functions, overridden from a base class private, if those are public in the base class?
struct base {
virtual void a();
};
struct derived : base {
// ...
private:
void a() override;
};
If you are forced to do a 2-phase construction on the implementation class (i.e. have an init() method as well as or instead of a constructor that has to be called (I know, but there are reasons), then this stops you calling any /other/ methods directly on the instance pointer before you pass it back as an interface pointer. Go the extra mile, make the inheritance private, and have your one public init function return the interface pointer!
Another reason is you just don't /need/ to write public: in a final implementation class declaration, so then by default everything is private. But why you would do that and use struct instead of class I don't know. Perhaps this was converted from class at some point due to a style war?
Looking at your design, I see one cannot call derived::a directly, but only through a base interface.
Is there any point? Consider that, once we have a derived instance, we can always up-cast to its base, so given
derived d;
while d.a() wouldn't compile, we can always do
base & b = d;
b.a(); //which actually calls derived::a
In other words: derived::a is not that private, after all, and I would discourage this design, which can be confusing to the user.
Things change if the members private in derived are private in base, as well: this time it is clear that they just cannot be called directly, outside base or derived.
Let's say we have a couple of functions, and want them to be called conditionally, according to a value passed as an argument to a third one:
struct base
{
void dosomething(bool x)
{
if(x)
{
do_this();
}
else
{
do_that();
}
}
private:
virtual void do_this(){}
virtual void do_that(){}
};
Thus a derived class could be like:
struct derived : base
{
private:
void do_this() override { }
void do_that() override { }
};
and no other class can call them, unless it extended base itself:
derived d;
d.dosomething(true); //will call do_this() in derived
d.dosomething(false); //will call do_that() in derived
d.do_that() //won't compile
Yes, if you inherit the base class as private. Otherwise, it is more of a weird explicit-like restriction - user has to has to make an explicit conversion to use the function - it is generally ill advised as few will be able to comprehend the author's intention.
If you want to restrict some functions from base class, make a private/protected inheritance and via using keyword declare which base-methods you want to be protected/public in the derived class.
The same reasoning as for non-virtual methods applies: If only the class itself is supposed to call it make it private.
Consider the template method pattern:
struct base {
void foo() { a() ; b(); }
virtual void a() = 0;
virtual void b() = 0;
};
struct derived : base {
private:
void a() override {}
void b() override {}
};
int main()
{
derived().foo();
}
Perhaps a and b should have been protected, but anyhow the derived can change accesibility and it requires some documentation so that derived knows how it is supposed to implement a and b.
class Base {
public:
virtual void f();
void f(int);
virtual ~Base();
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
void f();
};
int main()
{
Derived *ptr = new Derived;
ptr->f(1);
delete ptr;
return 0;
}
ptr->f(1); is showing the following error: "too many arguments in function call".
Why is this isn't possible? isn't derived inherited all the functions form base and is free to use any of them?
I could call it explicitly and it would work but why isn't this allowed?
What you are seeing is called hiding.
When you override the function void f() in the Derived class, you hide all other variants of the f function in the Base class.
You can solve this with the using keyword:
class Derived : public Base {
public:
using Base::f; // Pull all `f` symbols from the base class into the scope of this class
void f() override; // Override the non-argument version
};
As mentioned by #Some Programming Dude : it is because of Hiding.
To understand hiding in relatively simpler language
Inheritance is meant to bring Baseclass variables / functions in Derived class.
But, on 1 condition : "If its not already available in Derived Class"
Since f() is already available in Derived, it doesn't make sense to look at Base class from compiler perspective.
That's the precise reason why you need to scope clarify while calling this function
void main()
{
Derived *ptr = new Derived;
ptr->Base::f(1);
delete ptr;
}
Suppose for time being that Derived do have the access to the function void Base::f(int);. Then it will be a case of function overloading. But, this is invalid case of function overloading since one function f(int);is in Base and other function f(); is in Derived. Function Overloading happens inside a single class. Function Overriding happens across classes. The example you posted is a case of Name Hiding in Inheritance
"Derived *ptr" This definition will only allow "ptr" to access all the member functions which are defined via Derived class or its child class. But, it will not allow u to access the member functions which are coming in Derived class because of inheritance.
If u want to access base class version of function "f" then use "Base *ptr" and it will choose the correct version of function automatically as shown :)
class Base {
public:
virtual void f()
{
cout<<"Here 2"<<endl;
}
void f(int x)
{
cout<<"Here 1"<<endl;
}
virtual ~Base() {}
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
void f()
{
cout<<"Here 3"<<endl;
}
virtual ~Derived() {}
};
int main()
{
Base *ptr = new Derived;
ptr->f(1);
delete ptr;
return 0;
}
output is
Here 1
Is it sufficient to define the method once to be virtual in the inheritance hierarchy to make polymorphism to work.
In the following example Der::f is not defined to be virtual but d2->f(); prints der2
I am using VS IDE (may be it is only there...)
class Base
{
public:
virtual void f() { std::cout << "base"; }
};
class Der : public Base
{
public:
void f() { std::cout << "der"; } //should be virtual?
};
class Der2 : public Der
{
public:
void f() { std::cout << "der2"; }
};
int main()
{
Der* d2 = new Der2();
d2->f();
}
Yes, polymorphism will work if you define method as a virtual only in your Base class. However, it is a convention I came across working with some large projects to always repeat virtual keyword in method declarations in derived classes. It may be useful when you are working with a lot of files with complex class hierarchy (many inheritance levels), where classes are declared in separate files. That way you don't have to check which method is virtual by looking for base class declaration while adding another derived class.
Everything that inherits from Base - directly or through several layers will have f() virtual as if the class declarion had explicitely placed virtual when f() was declared.
I know that when you want to declare a polymorphic function you have to declare the base class function virtual.
class Base
{
public:
virtual void f();
};
My question is are you required to declare the inheriting class function as virtual, even if it's expected that Child behaves as if it were "sealed"?
class Child : public Base
{
public:
void f();
};
No, you don't need to re-declare the function virtual.
A virtual function in a base class will automatically declare all overriding functions as virtual:
struct A
{
void foo(); //not virtual
};
struct B : A
{
virtual void foo(); //virtual
}
struct C : B
{
void foo(); //virtual
}
Declaring f() as virtual in Child helps some one reading the definition of Child. It is useful as documentation.
Once the base class override is marked as virtual all other overrides are implicitly so. While you are not required to mark the function as virtual I tend to do so for documentation purposes.
As of the last part: even if it's expected that Child behaves as if it were "sealed"?, if you want to seal the class, you can actually do it in C++11 (this was not fully implementable in C++03 generically) by creating a seal class like so:
template <typename T>
class seal {
seal() {}
friend T;
};
And then inheriting your sealed class from it (CRTP):
class Child : public Base, virtual seal<Child> {
// ...
};
The trick is that because of the use of virtual inheritance, the most derived type in the hierarchy must call the virtual base constructor (int this case seal<Child>), but that constructor is private in the templated class, and only available to Child through the friend declaration.
In C++ you would have to either create a seal type for every class that you wanted to seal, or else use a generic approach that did not provide a perfect seal (it could be tampered with)
What is the purpose of the final keyword in C++11 for functions? I understand it prevents function overriding by derived classes, but if this is the case, then isn't it enough to declare as non-virtual your final functions? Is there another thing I'm missing here?
What you are missing, as idljarn already mentioned in a comment is that if you are overriding a function from a base class, then you cannot possibly mark it as non-virtual:
struct base {
virtual void f();
};
struct derived : base {
void f() final; // virtual as it overrides base::f
};
struct mostderived : derived {
//void f(); // error: cannot override!
};
It is to prevent a class from being inherited. From Wikipedia:
C++11 also adds the ability to prevent inheriting from classes or simply preventing overriding methods in derived classes. This is done with the special identifier final. For example:
struct Base1 final { };
struct Derived1 : Base1 { }; // ill-formed because the class Base1
// has been marked final
It is also used to mark a virtual function so as to prevent it from being overridden in the derived classes:
struct Base2 {
virtual void f() final;
};
struct Derived2 : Base2 {
void f(); // ill-formed because the virtual function Base2::f has
// been marked final
};
Wikipedia further makes an interesting point:
Note that neither override nor final are language keywords. They are technically identifiers; they only gain special meaning when used in those specific contexts. In any other location, they can be valid identifiers.
That means, the following is allowed:
int const final = 0; // ok
int const override = 1; // ok
"final" also allows a compiler optimization to bypass the indirect call:
class IAbstract
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};
class CDerived : public IAbstract
{
void DoSomething() final { m_x = 1 ; }
void Blah( void ) { DoSomething(); }
};
with "final", the compiler can call CDerived::DoSomething() directly from within Blah(), or even inline. Without it, it has to generate an indirect call inside of Blah() because Blah() could be called inside a derived class which has overridden DoSomething().
Nothing to add to the semantic aspects of "final".
But I'd like to add to chris green's comment that "final" might become a very important compiler optimization technique in the not so distant future. Not only in the simple case he mentioned, but also for more complex real-world class hierarchies which can be "closed" by "final", thus allowing compilers to generate more efficient dispatching code than with the usual vtable approach.
One key disadvantage of vtables is that for any such virtual object (assuming 64-bits on a typical Intel CPU) the pointer alone eats up 25% (8 of 64 bytes) of a cache line. In the kind of applications I enjoy to write, this hurts very badly. (And from my experience it is the #1 argument against C++ from a purist performance point of view, i.e. by C programmers.)
In applications which require extreme performance, which is not so unusual for C++, this might indeed become awesome, not requiring to workaround this problem manually in C style or weird Template juggling.
This technique is known as Devirtualization. A term worth remembering. :-)
There is a great recent speech by Andrei Alexandrescu which pretty well explains how you can workaround such situations today and how "final" might be part of solving similar cases "automatically" in the future (discussed with listeners):
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/Writing-Quick-Code-in-Cpp-Quickly
Final cannot be applied to non-virtual functions.
error: only virtual member functions can be marked 'final'
It wouldn't be very meaningful to be able to mark a non-virtual method as 'final'. Given
struct A { void foo(); };
struct B : public A { void foo(); };
A * a = new B;
a -> foo(); // this will call A :: foo anyway, regardless of whether there is a B::foo
a->foo() will always call A::foo.
But, if A::foo was virtual, then B::foo would override it. This might be undesirable, and hence it would make sense to make the virtual function final.
The question is though, why allow final on virtual functions. If you have a deep hierarchy:
struct A { virtual void foo(); };
struct B : public A { virtual void foo(); };
struct C : public B { virtual void foo() final; };
struct D : public C { /* cannot override foo */ };
Then the final puts a 'floor' on how much overriding can be done. Other classes can extend A and B and override their foo, but it a class extends C then it is not allowed.
So it probably doesn't make sense to make the 'top-level' foo final, but it might make sense lower down.
(I think though, there is room to extend the words final and override to non-virtual members. They would have a different meaning though.)
A use-case for the 'final' keyword that I am fond of is as follows:
// This pure abstract interface creates a way
// for unit test suites to stub-out Foo objects
class FooInterface
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
private:
virtual void DoSomethingImpl() = 0;
};
// Implement Non-Virtual Interface Pattern in FooBase using final
// (Alternatively implement the Template Pattern in FooBase using final)
class FooBase : public FooInterface
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething() final { DoFirst(); DoSomethingImpl(); DoLast(); }
private:
virtual void DoSomethingImpl() { /* left for derived classes to customize */ }
void DoFirst(); // no derived customization allowed here
void DoLast(); // no derived customization allowed here either
};
// Feel secure knowing that unit test suites can stub you out at the FooInterface level
// if necessary
// Feel doubly secure knowing that your children cannot violate your Template Pattern
// When DoSomething is called from a FooBase * you know without a doubt that
// DoFirst will execute before DoSomethingImpl, and DoLast will execute after.
class FooDerived : public FooBase
{
private:
virtual void DoSomethingImpl() {/* customize DoSomething at this location */}
};
final adds an explicit intent to not have your function overridden, and will cause a compiler error should this be violated:
struct A {
virtual int foo(); // #1
};
struct B : A {
int foo();
};
As the code stands, it compiles, and B::foo overrides A::foo. B::foo is also virtual, by the way. However, if we change #1 to virtual int foo() final, then this is a compiler error, and we are not allowed to override A::foo any further in derived classes.
Note that this does not allow us to "reopen" a new hierarchy, i.e. there's no way to make B::foo a new, unrelated function that can be independently at the head of a new virtual hierarchy. Once a function is final, it can never be declared again in any derived class.
The final keyword allows you to declare a virtual method, override it N times, and then mandate that 'this can no longer be overridden'. It would be useful in restricting use of your derived class, so that you can say "I know my super class lets you override this, but if you want to derive from me, you can't!".
struct Foo
{
virtual void DoStuff();
}
struct Bar : public Foo
{
void DoStuff() final;
}
struct Babar : public Bar
{
void DoStuff(); // error!
}
As other posters pointed out, it cannot be applied to non-virtual functions.
One purpose of the final keyword is to prevent accidental overriding of a method. In my example, DoStuff() may have been a helper function that the derived class simply needs to rename to get correct behavior. Without final, the error would not be discovered until testing.
Final keyword in C++ when added to a function, prevents it from being overridden by derived classes.
Also when added to a class prevents inheritance of any type.
Consider the following example which shows use of final specifier. This program fails in compilation.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Base
{
public:
virtual void myfun() final
{
cout << "myfun() in Base";
}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
void myfun()
{
cout << "myfun() in Derived\n";
}
};
int main()
{
Derived d;
Base &b = d;
b.myfun();
return 0;
}
Also:
#include <iostream>
class Base final
{
};
class Derived : public Base
{
};
int main()
{
Derived d;
return 0;
}
Final keyword have the following purposes in C++
If you make a virtual method in base class as final, it cannot be overridden in the derived class. It will show a compilation error:
class Base {
public:
virtual void display() final {
cout << "from base" << endl;
}
};
class Child : public Base {
public:
void display() {
cout << "from child" << endl;
}
};
int main() {
Base *b = new Child();
b->display();
cin.get();
return 0;
}
If we make a class as final, it cannot be inherited by its child classes:
class Base final {
public:
void displayBase() {
cout << "from base" << endl;
}
};
class Child :public Base {
public:
void displayChild() {
cout << "from child" << endl;
}
};
Note: the main difference with final keyword in Java is ,
a) final is not actually a keyword in C++.
you can have a variable named as final in C++
b) In Java, final keyword is always added before the class keyword.
Supplement to Mario Knezović 's answer:
class IA
{
public:
virtual int getNum() const = 0;
};
class BaseA : public IA
{
public:
inline virtual int getNum() const final {return ...};
};
class ImplA : public BaseA {...};
IA* pa = ...;
...
ImplA* impla = static_cast<ImplA*>(pa);
//the following line should cause compiler to use the inlined function BaseA::getNum(),
//instead of dynamic binding (via vtable or something).
//any class/subclass of BaseA will benefit from it
int n = impla->getNum();
The above code shows the theory, but not actually tested on real compilers. Much appreciated if anyone paste a disassembled output.