It's easy to understand the virtual function in public inheritance. So what's the point for virtual function in private or protected inheritance?
For example:
class Base {
public:
virtual void f() { cout<<"Base::f()"<<endl;}
};
class Derived: private Base {
public:
void f() { cout<<"Derived::f()"<<endl;}
};
Is this still called overriding? What's the use of this case? What's the relationship of these two f()?
Thanks!
Private inheritance is just an implementation technique, not an is-a relationship, as Scott Meyers explains in Effective C++:
class Timer {
public:
explicit Timer(int tickFrequency);
virtual void onTick() const; // automatically called for each tick
...
};
class Widget: private Timer {
private:
virtual void onTick() const; // look at Widget private data
...
};
Widget clients shouldn't be able to call onTick on a Widget, because that's not part of the conceptual Widget interface.
Your f() method is still overridden. This relationship is useful when implementing the Template Method design pattern. Basically, you'd implement common sets of operations in the base class. Those base class operations would then invoke a virtual method, like your f(). If the derived class overrides f(), the base class operations end up calling the derived version of f(). This allows derived classes to keep the base algorithm the same but alter the behavior to suit their needs. Here's a trivial example:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Base
{
public:
virtual void f() { cout<<"Base::f()" << endl; }
protected:
void base_foo() { f(); }
};
class DerivedOne: private Base
{
public:
void f() { cout << "Derived::f()" << endl;}
void foo() { base_foo(); }
};
class DerivedTwo: private Base
{
public:
void foo() { base_foo(); }
};
int main()
{
DerivedOne d1;
d1.foo();
DerivedTwo d2;
d2.foo();
}
Here's the result at run-time:
$ ./a.out
Derived::f()
Base::f()
Both derived classes call the same base class operation but the behavior is different for each derived class.
There doesn't need to be a point to every combination of different features. You're simply allowed to combine them.
A virtual protected member is accessible to derived classes, so it's useful to them.
A virtual private member is accessible to friend classes, so it's useful to them.
Both private and protected inheritance allow overriding virtual functions in the private/protected base class and neither claims the derived is a kind-of its base.
Protected inheritance allows derived classes of derived classes to know about the inheritance relationship and still override the virtual functions.
Privately inheriting from the Base class in your Derived class, destroys all conceptual ties between the derived and base class. The derived class is just implemented in terms of the base class, nothing more. Private inheritance is just an implementation technique and implies no relationship between the classes involved.
An example would be:
/// Thread body interface
class runnable
{
public:
virtual ~runnable() {}
virtual void run() =0;
};
/// Starts OS thread, calls p->run() in new thread
thread_id start_thread( runnable* p );
/// Has a private thread
class actor: private runnable, private noncopyable
{
private:
thread_id tid; /// private thread
public:
actor() { tid = start_thread( this ); } // here this IS-A runnable
// ...
virtual ~actor() { stop_thread( tid ); }
private:
virtual void run() { /* work */ }
};
Related
Maybe I didn't make my question clear, the following answers are not answering my question. Let me make the question more specific. My question is that I have a base class to send to clients so that clients can develop derived classes at their ends. How can I hide the private methods and members?
For example, in the following code snippets, the base.h file declares the base class which provides three private virtual methods for clients to override in the derived classes. The clients can override none, any, or all of them. Assuming a client developed a derived class called "Derived", and passed the "Derived" class creator to me so that I can create the Derived class somewhere, e.g. Base* p_base = new Derived() and call p_base->Execute() to actually call client implementations of virtual functions DoInitialize(), DoExecute(), DoCleanUp().
BTW: I don't think opaque pointers will work.
In Base.h file:
class Base {
public:
Base();
~Base();
void Execute();
private:
// virtual functions to be overridden by derived classes.
virtual void DoInitialize() {}
virtual void DoExecute() {}
virtual void DoCleanUp() {}
private:
// private members and functions that are intended to hide from clients
std::vector<float> data_;
....
}
In Base.cpp file
Base::Execute() {
DoInitialize();
DoExecute();
DoCleanUp();
}
In clients end
class Derived : public Base {
public:
Derived();
~Derived();
private:
// overide base class methods
void DoInitialize() {}
void DoExecute() {}
void DoCleanUp() {}
}
In my end somewhere:
void main() {
Base* p = DerivedCreater(); // creater a Derived class, assumes DerivedCreater() has passed in by clients.
p->Execute(); // I want to call the client implementation of DoInitialize(), DoExecute(), and DoCleanUp()
}
The way to go is to have an opaque pointer to the implementation.
class BaseImpl;
class Base {
public:
Base();
~Base();
private:
// virtual functions to be overridden by derived classes.
virtual void Initialize() {}
private:
// private members and functions that are not intended to override by derived classes
void Configure() { m_impl->Configure(); }
BaseImpl* m_impl;
}
Then, in the BaseImpl, you keep a pointer to the Base and you call the virtual functions as wanted. You keep BaseImpl.h in your private includes and you don't distribute it to the library users.
See:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/pimpl
Lets say we have following hierarchy:
class Abstract
{
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
class Base : public Abstract
{
public:
virtual void foo() override; //provides base implementation
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
virtual void foo() override; //provides derived implementation
};
If Base::foo() is ever called on the Derived object that object will desync and its data will be corrupted. It inherits Base's data structure and its manipulation but needs to perform additional operations so calling only the Base::foo() will omit these extra operations and as a result the Derived's state will be corrupted.
Therefore I would like to prevent direct call of Base implementation of foo so this:
Derived d;
d.Base::foo();
ideally, should give me a compile time error of some sorts. Or do nothing or otherwise be prevented.
However it might be I am violating the polymorphism rules and should use composition instead but that would require a lots of extra typing...
How about template method pattern:
class Abstract
{
public:
void foo() { foo_impl(); }
private:
virtual void foo_impl() = 0;
};
class Base : public Abstract
{
private:
virtual void foo_impl() override; //provides base implementation
};
class Derived : public Base
{
private:
virtual void foo_impl() override; //provides derived implementation
};
then
void test(Abstract& obj) {
obj.foo(); // the correct foo_impl() will be invoked
}
Derived d;
test(d); // impossible to call the foo_impl() of Base
You can explore the template method pattern. It allows for greater control of the execution of the methods involved.
class Abstract
{
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
class Base : public Abstract
{
protected:
virtual void foo_impl() = 0;
public:
//provides base implementation and calls foo_impl()
virtual void foo() final override { /*...*/ foo_impl(); }
};
class Derived : public Base
{
protected:
virtual void foo_impl() override; //provides derived implementation
};
The pattern is seen in the iostreams library with sync() and pubsync() methods.
To prevent the direct calls and maintain the consistent state, you will need to get the final implementation of the foo method in the correct place in the stack. If the intent is to prohibit the direct call from the top of the hierarchy, then you can move the _impl methods up.
See also the non-virtual interface, the NVI pattern.
Bear in mind as well that the overriding methods do not have to have the same access specifier as the Abstract class. You could also just make the methods in the derived classes private or protected;
class Abstract
{
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
class Base : public Abstract
{
virtual void foo() override; //provides base implementation
};
class Derived : public Base
{
virtual void foo() override; //provides derived implementation
};
Note: unless otherwise intended, changing the access specifier could be considered bad design - so basically if you do change the access specifier, there should should be a good reason to do so.
You can make all the foo() methods non-public, then have a non-virtual function in the Abstract class that simply calls foo.
The following example is from the book "Inside C++ object model"
class Abstract_base {
public:
virtual ~Abstract_base () = 0;
virtual void interface () const = 0;
virtual const char* mumble () const
{
return _mumble;
}
protected:
char *_mumble;
};
The author says if I want to initialize _mumble, the data member of the pure virtual base class, a "protected constructor" should be implemented.
But why protected? And why "public constructor" is not suitable for this class?
Thanks for your answers, and it would be perfect if there's an example.
It doesn't really matter, since you're not allowed to construct objects of the base class anyway. Making it protected serves only as a reminder of the fact that the class is supposed to be a base class; it's only cosmetics/documentation.
Consider
struct Base {
virtual ~Base() = 0;
protected:
Base() { std::puts("Base constructor"); }
};
Base::~Base() { std::puts("Base destructor"); }
struct Derived : Base {};
int main()
{
//Base b; // compiler error
Derived d;
Base *b = new Derived();
delete b;
}
Removing the protected doesn't change the meaning of the program in any way.
Abstract classes and construction of such
It doesn't matter if the constructor is public or protected, since an abstract class cannot be instantiated.
You must inherit from it in order to have it's constructor called, and since the Derived class calls the constructor of the abstract class it doesn't matter what protection level you choose, as long as the Derived class can access it.
One reason that one could possibly have for making it protected is to serve as a reminder that the class must be constructed through inheritance, but honestly that should be clear enough when seeing that it has pure virtual member-functions.
example snippet
struct B {
virtual void func () = 0;
virtual ~B () = 0 { };
};
B::~B () { }
struct D : B {
void func () override;
};
int main () {
B b; // will error, no matter if Bs ctor is 'public' or 'protected'
// due to pure virtual member-function
D d; // legal, D has overriden `void B::func ()`
}
A pure virtual class cannot be instantiated, so it doesn't make a difference if the constructor is public or protected.
A public constructor is syntactically correct. However, making it protected will carry a stronger indication that the class cannot be instantiated.
For an example: http://ideone.com/L66Prq
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class PublicAbstract {
public:
PublicAbstract() { }
virtual void doThings() =0;
};
class ProtectedAbstract {
protected:
ProtectedAbstract() { }
public:
virtual void doMoreThings() =0;
};
class B: public PublicAbstract {
public:
void doThings() { }
};
class C: public ProtectedAbstract {
public:
void doMoreThings() { }
};
int main() {
B b;
C c;
return 0;
}
A public constructor would not be very useful, since abstract classes cannot be instantiated in the first place.
A protected constructor makes sense: this way, a derived concrete class can provide its own public constructor that chains to the protected constructor of the base abstract class.
Protecetd ctor will make sure the ctor gets called by only the classes which derive from Abstract_base.
Public ctor is not suitable because the class contains a pure virtual method! How are you planning to instantiate a pure-virtual class if not via its child classes?
I have 6 classes which all perform the same actions. I would like to move common behavior to a common [base] class.
There are actions to be performed on 6 separate objects. The six objects are located in derived classes. Intuitively, the private member objects would be accessed through the child (derived class) in the base class.
What is the C++ pattern I am looking for?
class Base
{
// Common behavior, operate on m_object
...
void Foo()
{
m_object.Bar();
}
};
class Derived1 : public Base
{
// No methods, use Base methods
private:
MyObject1 m_object;
}
class Derived2 : public Base
{
// No methods, use Base methods
private:
MyObject2 m_object;
}
The thing that is boxing me into this situation is MyObject1, MyObject2, etc offer Bar(), but don't share a common base class. I really can't fix the derivation because the objects come from an external library.
If they are introduced in the derived classes, then the base class cannot directly access them. How would the base class know that all derived classes have a specific member?
You could use virtual protected methods like so:
class my_base
{
protected:
virtual int get_whatever();
virtual double get_whatever2();
private:
void process()
{
int y = get_whatever();
double x = get_whatever2();
//yay, profit?
}
}
class my_derived_1 : my_base
{
protected:
virtual int get_whatever()
{
return _my_integer;
}
virtual double get_whatever2()
{
return _my_double;
}
}
Another possibility (if you want to call the base methods from the derived classes) is to simply supply the arguments to the base methods.
class my_base
{
protected:
void handle_whatever(int & arg);
};
class my_derived : my_base
{
void do()
{
my_base::handle_whatever(member);
}
int member;
};
C++ does and doesn't. It has a very powerful multiple inheritance support, so there is no super keyword. Why? Imagine that your base class is, say, inherited by another two classes, or even is a part of virtual inheritance hierarchy. In that case you can't really tell what super is supposed to mean. On the other hand, there are virtual methods, you can always have them in base class and implement in derived classes (that's what languages like Java do, except that they they don't have multiple class inheritance support). If you don't want to go with polymorphism, you can use something like this:
#include <cstdio>
template <typename T>
struct Base
{
void foo ()
{
std::printf ("Base::foo\n");
static_cast<T *> (this)->bar ();
}
};
struct Derived : Base<Derived>
{
void bar ()
{
std::printf ("Derived::bar\n");
}
};
int
main ()
{
Derived d;
d.foo ();
}
This is an extremely simple example - you can extend the above example with access control, friends, compile-time assertions etcetera, but you get the idea.
Have you considered not using inheritance?
class FooBar
{
MyObject m_object;
public:
FooBar(MyObject m): m_object(m) {}
//operate on different m_objects all you want
};
What about deriving your six separate objects from a common base class? Then you can declare virtual methods in that base class to create your interface, and then implement them in the derived object classes.
Maybe you just need a template instead of superclass and 6 derived classes?
It seems that you need to access not the parent's, but child's field. You should do it by introducing an abstract method:
class ParentClass
{
public:
void f();
protected:
virtual int getSomething() = 0;
};
ParentClass::f()
{
cout << getSomething() << endl;
}
class DerivedClass : public ParentClass
{
protected:
virtual int getSomething();
}
DerivedClass::getSomething() { return 42; }
If you need to access parent's method, just use ParentClass::method(...):
class ParentClass
{
public:
virtual void f();
};
class DerivedClass : public ParentClass
{
public:
virtual void f();
};
void DerivedClass::f()
{
ParentClass::f();
}
In C++, let's say I have a class Derived that implements an interface class BaseInterface, where BaseInterface has only pure virtual functions and a virtual destructor:
class BaseInterface
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
~BaseInterface(){}
};
class Derived : public BaseInterface
{
public:
Derived() {}
~Derived(){}
protected:
virtual void doSomething();
private:
int x;
};
No classes outside the Derived class hierarchy should call Derived::doSomething() directly, i.e., it should only be accessed polymorphically through the BaseInterface class. To enforce this rule, I have made Derived::doSomething() protected. This works well, but I'm looking for opinions pro/con regarding this approach.
Thanks!
Ken
I think you're looking for the non-virtual interface (NVI) pattern: a public non-virtual interface that calls a protected or private virtual implementation:
class BaseInterface
{
public:
virtual ~BaseInterface(){}
void doSomething() { doSomethingImpl(); }
protected:
virtual void doSomethingImpl() = 0;
};
class Derived : public BaseInterface
{
public:
Derived() {}
virtual ~Derived(){}
protected:
virtual void doSomethingImpl();
private:
int x;
};
If it is part of the interface, why would you not want users to call it? Note that as it is, they can call it: static_cast<BaseInterface&>(o).doSomething() is just an awkward way of saying o.doSomething(). What is the point of using the interface... if the object fulfills the interface, then you should be able to use it, or am I missing something?
Since you are not actually blocking anyone from calling the methods, I don't see a point in making the code more complex (both the class and users of the class) for no particular reason. Note that this is completely different from the Non-Virtual Interface in that in this idiom virtual functions are not accessible publicly (at any level) while in your case, the intention is allowing access, and making it cumbersome.
What you are doing is also mentioned in standard ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) 11.6.1 and believe you are correct. Other than the fact, the member function isn't pure virtual in the given example. It should hold for pure virtual functions too, AFAIK.
The access rules (clause 11) for a virtual function are determined by its declaration and are not affected by the rules for a function that later overrides it.
[Example:
class B
{
public:
virtual int f();
};
class D : public B
{
private:
int f();
};
void f()
{
D d;
B* pb = &d;
D* pd = &d;
pb->f(); // OK: B::f() is public,
// D::f() is invoked
pd->f(); // error: D::f() is private
}
—end example]
Access is checked at the call point using the type of the expression used to denote the
object for which the member function is called (B* in the example above). The access of the member function in the class in which it was defined (D in the example above) is in general not known.
The key is the rest of your code. Only accept a BaseInterface* as an argument to any methods that require the doSomething() call. The client programmer is forced to derive from the interface to make his code compile.
This makes no sense to me. Regardless of which pointer you call doSomething(), you would still wind up with the method defined in most derived class. Consider the following scenario:
class BaseInterface
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
~BaseInterface(){}
};
class Derived : public BaseInterface
{
public:
Derived() {}
~Derived(){}
virtual void doSomething(){}
private:
int x;
};
class SecondDerived : public Derived
{
public:
SecondDerived() {}
~SecondDerived(){}
private:
int x;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
SecondDerived derived;
derived.doSomething(); //Derived::doSomething is called
BaseInterface* pInt = &derived;
pInt->doSomething(); //Derived::doSomething is called
return 0;
}