Or does it?
Should an object-oriented design use a language construct that exposes member data by default, if there is an equally useful construct that properly hides data members?
EDIT: One of the responders mentioned that if there's no invariant one can use a struct. That's an interesting observation: a struct is a data structure, i.e. it contains related data. If the data members in a struct are related isn't there's always an invariant?
In C++, structs and classes are identical except for the default public/privateness of their members. (This default is easily, and usually, overridden.)
However, most programmers think of a struct as a "data object" and a class as an "interactive object". That's not a bad thing; and in fact should be taken advantage of. If something is just an inanimate lump of data (even maybe if it has a couple of inspector methods), use a struct for it; it'll save a bit of effort when a programmer is trying to see what it's for.
Don't be a hiding zealot. If your get/set methods do nothing but simply copy verbatim the value onto/from a hidden, private field, you've gained nothing over a public member and only complicate unnecessarily your class (and, depending on the intelligence of the compiler, slow its usage a bit).
There's a case for not allowing direct access when your setter methods do some validation, copy the data somewhere else, process it a bit before storing it, etc. Same in the case of getters that actually calculate the value they return from multiple internal sources, and hide the way it's derived (I believe Bertrand Meyer speaks a bit about this in his book)
Or if allowing the users of your class to directly change such a value would have unintended side effects or breaks an assumption some of your member classes have about the values. On those situations, by all means, do hide your values.
For instance, for a simple "Point" class, that only holds a couple coordinates and colour, and methods to "Plot" it and "Hide" it on screen, I would see no point in not allowing the user to directly set the values for its fields.
In C# for example I use structs for some simple better-left-as-values data types:
public struct Point
{
int X;
int Y;
}
and for any P/Invoke to libraries where the arguments are structs you'll have to use them for certain.
Do they belong in the general design of an application? Of course they do, use a struct when it makes sense to do so. Just like you'd use a enum with bit flags when it makes sense to do so instead of resorting to some complicated string parsing for storing combined values.
In C++, the difference between a struct and a class is the default visibility of its contents (i.e. public for a struct, and private for a class). I guess this difference was to keep C compatibility.
But semantically, I guess this is subject to interpretation.
An example of struct
In a struct, everything is public (by default), meaning the user can modify each data value as desired, and still the struct remains a valid object. Example of struct:
struct CPoint
{
int x ;
int y ;
CPoint() : x(0), y(0) {}
int getDistanceFromOrigin() const
{
return std::sqrt(x * x + y * y) ;
}
} ;
inline CPoint operator + (const CPoint & lhs, const CPoint & rhs)
{
CPoint r(lhs) ;
r.x += rhs.x ;
r.y += rhs.y ;
return r ;
}
You can change the x value of a CPoint, and it still remains a valid CPoint.
Note that, unlike some believe, a C++ struct can (and should) have constructors, methods and non-member functions attached to its interface, as shown above.
An example of class
In a class, everything is private (by default), meaning the user can modify the data only through a well defined interface, because the class must keep its internals valid. Example of class:
class CString
{
public :
CString(const char * p) { /* etc. */ } ;
CString(const CString & p) { /* etc. */ } ;
const char * getString() const { return this->m_pString ; }
size_t getSize() const { return this->m_iSize ; }
void copy { /* code for string copy */ }
void concat { /* code for string concatenation */ }
private :
size_t m_iSize ;
char * m_pString ;
} ;
inline CString operator + (const CString & lhs, const CString & rhs)
{
CString r(lhs) ;
r.concat(rhs) ;
return r ;
}
You see that when you call concat, both the pointer could need reallocation (to increase its size), and the size of the string must be updated automatically. You can't let the user modify the string by hand, and forget updating the size.
So, the class must protect its internal, and be sure everything will be correctly updated when needed.
Conclusion
For me, the difference between a struct and a class is the dependencies between the aggregated data.
If each and every piece of data is independent from all the others, then perhaps you should consider a struct (i.e., a class with public data member).
If not, or if in doubt, use a class.
Now, of course, in C#, the struct and class are two different type of objects (i.e. value types for structs, and referenced types for classes). But this is out of this topic, I guess.
Technically, a struct is a class with the default visibility of public (a real class has a default visibility of private).
There is more of a distinction in common use.
A struct is normally just a collection of data, to be examined and processed by other code.
A class is normally more of a thing, maintaining some sort of control over its data, and with behavior specified by associated functions.
Typically, classes are more useful, but every so often there's uses for something like a C struct, and it's useful to have a notational difference to show it.
The matter is easy. If the class does have invariants to guarantee, you should never make the members constraining the invariant public.
If your struct is merely an aggregate of different objects, and doesn't have an invariant to hold, you are indeed free and encouraged to put its members public. That's the way std::pair<T, U> in C++ does it.
What's that invariant stuff?
Simple example: Consider you have a Point class whose x and y members must always be >= 0 . You can make an invariant stating
/* x >= 0 && y >= 0 for this classes' objects. */
If you now make those members public, clients could simply change x and y, and your invariant could break easily. If the members, however, are allowed to contain all possible values fitting their own invariants respectively, you could of course just make those members public: You wouldn't add any protection to them anyway.
A struct is essentially a model class but with different syntax.
public struct Point {
int x;
int y;
}
is logically the same as:
public class Point {
private int x;
private int y;
public void setX(int x) { this.x=x; }
public int getX(); { return x; }
public void setY(int y) { this.y=y; }
public int getY(); { return y; }
}
Both are a mutable model that holds pair of integer values called x and y. So I would say that it's a valid object oriented construct.
Yes. It's like a mini-class.
Yes, they do. They have different semantic than classes. A struct is generally considered and treated as a value type, while a class is generally considered and treated as a reference type. The difference is not as much pronunciated in every day programming; however, it is an imprtant difference when it comes to things like marshalling, COM interop and passing instances around.
I use structs regularly - mostly for data received from the network or hardware. They are usually wrapped in a class for use by higher level parts of the program.
My rule of thumb is a struct is always pure data, except for a constructor. Anything else is a class.
Most answers seem to be in favor of a struct as something to be acceptable and useful, as long as it does not have a behavior (i.e. methods). That seems fair enough.
However, you can never be sure that your object does not evolve into something that may need behavior, and hence some control over its data members. If you're lucky enough that you have control over all users of your struct, you can go over all uses of all data members. But what if you don't have access to all users?
A struct, as used in C or C++, and the struct used in C# ( or any .Net language ), are such different animals that they probably should not even have the same name... Just about any generalization about structs in one language can easily be false, or true for a completely unrelated reason, in the other.
If there is a need for invariant, make it a class. Otherwise, struct is OK.
See these similar questions:
When should you use a class vs a struct in C++?
What are the differences between struct and class in C++
plus:
According to Stroustrup in the C++ Programming Language:
Which style you use depends on circumstances and taste. I usually prefer to use struct for classes that have all data public. I think of such classes as "not quite proper types, just data structures."
Formally, in C++ a struct is a class with the visibility of its members set to public by default. By tradition structs are used to group collection of homogeneous data that have no particular reasons for being accessed by specific methods.
The public visibility of its members makes structs preferred to class to implement policy classes and metafunctions.
There's nothing wrong with using structs per se, but if you're finding yourself needing them, you should ask what's wrong with your analysis. Consider, eg, the Point class above: it gives some little improvement in readability, since you can always use
Point foo;
//...
foo.x = bar;
in place of, say, having a two element array as in
#define X 0
#define Y 1
//...
foo[X] = bar;
But classes are meant to hide details behind a contract. If your Point is in some normalized space, the values may range in the half-open interval [0.0..1.0); if it's a screen they may range in [0..1023]. If you use a struct in place of accessors, how will you keep someone from assigning foo.x = 1023 when x should be everywhere < 1.0?
The only reason C++ programmers used structs for Points is that back at the dawn of time --- 20 years ago, when C++ was new --- inlining wasn't handled very well, so that foo.setX(1023) actually took more instructions than foo.x = 1023. That's no longer true.
Structs are fine as long as they're kept small. As you probably know, they are allocated on the stack (not the heap) so you need to watch the size. They can come in handy for small data structures like Point, Size, etc. A class is usually the better choice though, being a reference type and all.
Related
Classic way to get a reference to class member or its value we use getters like getValue(). Could this be an alternative way? :
class A{
ComplexClass value_;
public:
//No need. ComplexClass const& getValue() const { return value_; }
ComplexClass const& value = value_; /// ???
}
Will this work? How do you like such syntax?
UPD.
This point is to make user code simpler. Personally I better like auto x = a.value than auto x = a.getValue(). Of course this is a deal of taste.
Will this still work nice if:
class A{
public:
ComplexClass const& value = value_;
protected:
ComplexClass value_;
}
I ask because I met some troubles with one compiler.
One of the main reasons to prefer member functions over data members is flexibility and maintainability. If you only ever wrote some code once, perfectly, and it would never be changed or reused, then you could certainly have public data members that users refer to directly.
The interesting question is what happens when your code doesn't meet these criteria, e.g. if it is going to evolve, and if other people start using it. Then once you have a public data member, you are forced to always have that data member. Details of your class layout are now part of your public contract. Simple refactorings like moving common parts into nested member objects are no longer private and break existing users.
Your proposed reference data member adds almost no benefit over a public data member (except for in very trivial cases), and unlike member functions, non-static data members affect the class layout. Class layout is another thing you will probably want to keep stable once you have users, so that old, compiled libraries can continue to be linked against new user code. Member functions are much easier to evolve while keeping the data layout unchanged.
There's a nice example in the standard library where such a mistake was made: std::pair<T1, T2> is specified to contain public data members first and second. That means that all user specializations must adhere to the same specification, and cannot easily employ things like base layout optimizations. Had first and second been specified as member functions, such optimizations could be applied trivially.
I'm curious if that's proper way of assignement
class Foo {
int x_;
public:
int & x() {
return x_;
}
};
My teacher is making assignement like that: obj.x() = 5;
But IMO that's not the proper way of doing it, its not obvious and it would be better to use setter here. Is that violation of clear and clean code ? If we take rule that we should read the code like a book that code is bad, am I right ? Can anyone tell me if am I right ? :)
IMO, this code is not a good practice in terms of evolution. If you need to provide some changes checking, formatting, you have to refactor your class API which can become a problem with time.
Having set_x() would be a way cleaner. Moreover, it will allow you to have checking mechanics in your setter.
a proper getter get_x() or x() could also apply some logic (format, anything...) before returning. In your case, you should return int instead of int& since setter should be used for modification (no direct modification allowed).
And truly speaking, this code doesn't really make sense... it returns a reference on a property making it fully modifiable. Why not having directly a public property then ? And avoid creating an additional method ?
Do you want control or not on your data? If you think so, then you probably want a proper getter and setter. If not, you probably don't need a method, just make it public.
To conclude, I would say you are right, because the way you see it would make it better over the time, prone to non-breaking change, better to read.
As the UNIX philosophy mentions : "Rule of Clarity: Clarity is better than cleverness."
Assuming that x() happens to be public (or protected) member the function effectively exposes an implementation: the is an int held somewhere. Whether that is good or bad depends on context and as it stands there is very little context.
For example, if x() were actually spelled operator[](Key key) and part of a container class with subscript operator like std::vector<T> (in which case Key would really be std::size_t) or std::map<Key, Value> the use of returning a [non-const] reference is quite reasonable.
On the other hand, if the advice is to have such functions for essentially all members in a class, it is a rather bad idea as this access essentially allows uncontrolled access to the class's state. Having access functions for all members is generally and indication that there is no abstraction, too: having setters/getters for members tends to be an indication that the class is actually just an aggregate of values and a struct with all public members would likely serve the purpose as well, if not better. Actual abstractions where access to the data matters tend to expose an interface which is independent of its actual representation.
In this example, the effect of returning a (non-const) reference is the same as if you made the variable public. Any encapsulation is broken. However, that is not a bad thing by default. A case where this can help a lot is when the variable is part of a complicated structure and you want to provide an easy interface to that variable. For example
class Foo {
std::vector<std::list<std::pair<int,int>>> values;
public:
int& getFirstAt(int i){
return values[i].[0].first;
}
};
Now you have an easy access to the first element of the first element at position i and dont need to write the full expression every time.
Or your class might use some container internally, but what container it is should be a private detail, then instead of exposing the full container, you could expose references to the elements:
class Bar {
std::vector<int> values; // vector is private!!
public:
int& at(int i){ // accessing elements is public
return values.at(i);
}
};
In general such a code confuses readers.
obj.x() = 5;
However it is not rare to meet for example the following code
std::vector<int> v = { 1, 0 };
v.back() = 2;
It is a drawback of the C++ language.
In C# this drawback was avoided by introducing properties.
As for this particular example it would be better to use a getter and a setter.
For example
class Foo {
int x_;
public:
int get_value() const { return x_; }
void set_value( int value ) { x_ = value; }
};
In this case the interface can be kept while the realization can be changed.
I'm trying to learn C++, Thanks to this article I find many similarity between C++ and Python and Javascript: http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse231/python2Cpp.html
But I can't understand C++ Classes at all, they looks like Javascript prototypes, but not that easy.
For example:
//CLxLogMessage defined in header
class myLOG: public CLxLogMessage{
public:
virtual const char * GetFormat (){
return "Wavefront Object";
}
void Error (const std::string &msg){
CLxLogMessage::Error (msg.c_str ());
}
void Info (const std::string &msg){
CLxLogMessage::Info (msg.c_str ());
}
private:
std::string authoringTool;
};
Question: What is this Public/Private stuff at all!?
Edit: To be honest, I more enjoy C++ than Python, because I can learn truth meaning of everything, not simple automated commands, for example I preferred to use "int X" rather than "X" alone.
Thanks
myLOG is the name of the class. It inherits (look it up2) from CLxLogMessage and has the functions GetFormat (which is virtual and can be overridden by subclasses and called through base class pointers, look it up2), Error, and Info. It has the data member authoringTool which is a string.
The public and private stuff is access specifiers. Something in the private section can only be used by the class's member functions, and stuff in the public section can be used by anybody. There is another type of section called protected which means that only a class and its subclasses can access it, but nobody else1.
If you start adding stuff to a class without setting an access level first, it defaults to private.
You can have as many public, private, and protected sections as you want, in any order.
You need these different protection levels because you don't want other people messing with your data when you don't know about it. For example, if you had a class representing fractions, you wouldn't want someone to change the denominator to a 0 right under your nose. They'd have to go through a setter function which would check that the new value was valid before setting the denominator to it. That's just a trivial example though. The fact that Python does not have these is a shortcoming in the language's design.
All your questions would be answered if you had read a C++ book. There is no easy way out with C++. If you try to take one, you'll end up being a horrible C++ programmer.
1 You can let somebody else access private and protected members by declaring them as friends (look it up2).
2 Sorry for saying "look it up" so much, but it's too much information for me to put here. You'll have to find a good resource for these kinds of things.
Even though there's no way to give a comprehensive answer or anything near that, maybe think about it like this: classes are types. Consider this:
int n;
Here "int" is the name of a type, and "x" is a variable of type "int". There are basic types in C++, like "int", "char", "double". Now we can also make new, compound types from old types:
struct Foo
{
int n;
char c;
double d;
};
This defines a new type called "Foo", and Foo x; makes a new variable of that type. Now we can add some magic to the type "Foo":
class Foo
{
int n;
double d;
public:
Foo() : n(20), d(0.5) { } // "constructor"
};
The keywords struct and class almost mean the same thing, so we still have a compound type that has two member variables, n and d. However, this type also has a member function, and this one gets called every time you create a new Foo object. So when you say, Foo x;, then this variable's member value x.n will be set to 20 and x.d will be set to 0.5.
So that's that in a nutshell: Classes are types with built-in magic. And you are the magician.
The private and public is to do with data encapsulation, it means you can change the implementation of the class without affecting how it is used. I suggest reading up on some of the theory of object orientation.
Several questions about accessor methods in C++ have been asked on SO, but none was able satisfy my curiosity on the issue.
I try to avoid accessors whenever possible, because, like Stroustrup and other famous programmers, I consider a class with many of them a sign of bad OO. In C++, I can in most cases add more responsibility to a class or use the friend keyword to avoid them. Yet in some cases, you really need access to specific class members.
There are several possibilities:
1. Don't use accessors at all
We can just make the respective member variables public. This is a no-go in Java, but seems to be OK with the C++ community. However, I'm a bit worried about cases were an explicit copy or a read-only (const) reference to an object should be returned, is that exaggerated?
2. Use Java-style get/set methods
I'm not sure if it's from Java at all, but I mean this:
int getAmount(); // Returns the amount
void setAmount(int amount); // Sets the amount
3. Use objective C-style get/set methods
This is a bit weird, but apparently increasingly common:
int amount(); // Returns the amount
void amount(int amount); // Sets the amount
In order for that to work, you will have to find a different name for your member variable. Some people append an underscore, others prepend "m_". I don't like either.
Which style do you use and why?
From my perspective as sitting with 4 million lines of C++ code (and that's just one project) from a maintenance perspective I would say:
It's ok to not use getters/setters if members are immutable (i.e. const) or simple with no dependencies (like a point class with members X and Y).
If member is private only it's also ok to skip getters/setters. I also count members of internal pimpl-classes as private if the .cpp unit is smallish.
If member is public or protected (protected is just as bad as public) and non-const, non-simple or has dependencies then use getters/setters.
As a maintenance guy my main reason for wanting to have getters/setters is because then I have a place to put break points / logging / something else.
I prefer the style of alternative 2. as that's more searchable (a key component in writing maintainable code).
2) is the best IMO, because it makes your intentions clearest. set_amount(10) is more meaningful than amount(10), and as a nice side effect allows a member named amount.
Public variables is usually a bad idea, because there's no encapsulation. Suppose you need to update a cache or refresh a window when a variable is updated? Too bad if your variables are public. If you have a set method, you can add it there.
I never use this style. Because it can limit the future of your class design and explicit geters or setters are just as efficient with a good compilers.
Of course, in reality inline explicit getters or setters create just as much underlying dependency on the class implementation. THey just reduce semantic dependency. You still have to recompile everything if you change them.
This is my default style when I use accessor methods.
This style seems too 'clever' to me. I do use it on rare occasions, but only in cases where I really want the accessor to feel as much as possible like a variable.
I do think there is a case for simple bags of variables with possibly a constructor to make sure they're all initialized to something sane. When I do this, I simply make it a struct and leave it all public.
That is a good style if we just want to represent pure data.
I don't like it :) because get_/set_ is really unnecessary when we can overload them in C++.
STL uses this style, such as std::streamString::str and std::ios_base::flags, except when it should be avoided! when? When method's name conflicts with other type's name, then get_/set_ style is used, such as std::string::get_allocator because of std::allocator.
In general, I feel that it is not a good idea to have too many getters and setters being used by too many entities in the system. It is just an indication of a bad design or wrong encapsulation.
Having said that, if such a design needs to be refactored, and the source code is available, I would prefer to use the Visitor Design pattern. The reason is:
a. It gives a class an opportunity to
decide whom to allow access to its
private state
b. It gives a class an
opportunity to decide what access to
allow to each of the entities who are
interested in its private state
c. It
clearly documents such exteral access
via a clear class interface
Basic idea is:
a) Redesign if possible else,
b)
Refactor such that
All access to class state is via a well known individualistic
interface
It should be possible to configure some kind of do's and don'ts
to each such interface, e.g. all
access from external entity GOOD
should be allowed, all access from
external entity BAD should be
disallowed, and external entity OK
should be allowed to get but not set (for example)
I would not exclude accessors from use. May for some POD structures, but I consider them a good thing (some accessors might have additional logic, too).
It doesn't realy matters the naming convention, if you are consistent in your code. If you are using several third party libraries, they might use different naming conventions anyway. So it is a matter of taste.
I've seen the idealization of classes instead of integral types to refer to meaningful data.
Something like this below is generally not making good use of C++ properties:
struct particle {
float mass;
float acceleration;
float velocity;
} p;
Why? Because the result of p.mass*p.acceleration is a float and not force as expected.
The definition of classes to designate a purpose (even if it's a value, like amount mentioned earlier) makes more sense, and allow us to do something like:
struct amount
{
int value;
amount() : value( 0 ) {}
amount( int value0 ) : value( value0 ) {}
operator int()& { return value; }
operator int()const& { return value; }
amount& operator = ( int const newvalue )
{
value = newvalue;
return *this;
}
};
You can access the value in amount implicitly by the operator int. Furthermore:
struct wage
{
amount balance;
operator amount()& { return balance; }
operator amount()const& { return balance; }
wage& operator = ( amount const& newbalance )
{
balance = newbalance;
return *this;
}
};
Getter/Setter usage:
void wage_test()
{
wage worker;
(amount&)worker = 100; // if you like this, can remove = operator
worker = amount(105); // an alternative if the first one is too weird
int value = (amount)worker; // getting amount is more clear
}
This is a different approach, doesn't mean it's good or bad, but different.
An additional possibility could be :
int& amount();
I'm not sure I would recommend it, but it has the advantage that the unusual notation can refrain users to modify data.
str.length() = 5; // Ok string is a very bad example :)
Sometimes it is maybe just the good choice to make:
image(point) = 255;
Another possibility again, use functional notation to modify the object.
edit::change_amount(obj, val)
This way dangerous/editing function can be pulled away in a separate namespace with it's own documentation. This one seems to come naturally with generic programming.
Let me tell you about one additional possiblity, which seems the most conscise.
Need to read & modify
Simply declare that variable public:
class Worker {
public:
int wage = 5000;
}
worker.wage = 8000;
cout << worker.wage << endl;
Need just to read
class Worker {
int _wage = 5000;
public:
inline int wage() {
return _wage;
}
}
worker.wage = 8000; // error !!
cout << worker.wage() << endl;
The downside of this approach is that you need to change all the calling code (add parentheses, that is) when you want to change the access pattern.
variation on #3, i'm told this could be 'fluent' style
class foo {
private: int bar;
private: int narf;
public: foo & bar(int);
public: int bar();
public: foo & narf(int);
public: int narf();
};
//multi set (get is as expected)
foo f; f.bar(2).narf(3);
Is there a side effect in doing this:
C code:
struct foo {
int k;
};
int ret_foo(const struct foo* f){
return f.k;
}
C++ code:
class bar : public foo {
int my_bar() {
return ret_foo( (foo)this );
}
};
There's an extern "C" around the C++ code and each code is inside its own compilation unit.
Is this portable across compilers?
This is entirely legal. In C++, classes and structs are identical concepts, with the exception that all struct members are public by default. That's the only difference. So asking whether you can extend a struct is no different than asking if you can extend a class.
There is one caveat here. There is no guarantee of layout consistency from compiler to compiler. So if you compile your C code with a different compiler than your C++ code, you may run into problems related to member layout (padding especially). This can even occur when using C and C++ compilers from the same vendor.
I have had this happen with gcc and g++. I worked on a project which used several large structs. Unfortunately, g++ packed the structs significantly looser than gcc, which caused significant problems sharing objects between C and C++ code. We eventually had to manually set packing and insert padding to make the C and C++ code treat the structs the same. Note however, that this problem can occur regardless of subclassing. In fact we weren't subclassing the C struct in this case.
I certainly not recommend using such weird subclassing. It would be better to change your design to use composition instead of inheritance.
Just make one member
foo* m_pfoo;
in the bar class and it will do the same job.
Other thing you can do is to make one more class FooWrapper, containing the structure in itself with the corresponding getter method. Then you can subclass the wrapper. This way the problem with the virtual destructor is gone.
“Never derive from concrete classes.” — Sutter
“Make non-leaf classes abstract.” — Meyers
It’s simply wrong to subclass non-interface classes. You should refactor your libraries.
Technically, you can do what you want, so long as you don’t invoke undefined behavior by, e. g., deleting a pointer to the derived class by a pointer to its base class subobject. You don’t even need extern "C" for the C++ code. Yes, it’s portable. But it’s poor design.
This is perfectly legal, though it might be confusing for other programmers.
You can use inheritance to extend C-structs with methods and constructors.
Sample :
struct POINT { int x, y; }
class CPoint : POINT
{
public:
CPoint( int x_, int y_ ) { x = x_; y = y_; }
const CPoint& operator+=( const POINT& op2 )
{ x += op2.x; y += op2.y; return *this; }
// etc.
};
Extending structs might be "more" evil, but is not something you are forbidden to do.
Wow, that's evil.
Is this portable across compilers?
Most definitely not. Consider the following:
foo* x = new bar();
delete x;
In order for this to work, foo's destructor must be virtual which it clearly isn't. As long as you don't use new and as long as the derived objectd don't have custom destructors, though, you could be lucky.
/EDIT: On the other hand, if the code is only used as in the question, inheritance has no advantage over composition. Just follow the advice given by m_pGladiator.
This is perfectly legal, and you can see it in practice with the MFC CRect and CPoint classes. CPoint derives from POINT (defined in windef.h), and CRect derives from RECT. You are simply decorating an object with member functions. As long as you don't extend the object with more data, you're fine. In fact, if you have a complex C struct that is a pain to default-initialize, extending it with a class that contains a default constructor is an easy way to deal with that issue.
Even if you do this:
foo *pFoo = new bar;
delete pFoo;
then you're fine, since your constructor and destructor are trivial, and you haven't allocated any extra memory.
You also don't have to wrap your C++ object with 'extern "C"', since you're not actually passing a C++ type to the C functions.
I don't think it is necessarily a problem. The behaviour is well defined, and as long as you are careful with life-time issues (don't mix and match allocations between the C++ and C code) will do what you want. It should be perfectly portable across compilers.
The problem with destructors is real, but applies any time the base class destructor isn't virtual not just for C structs. It is something you need to be aware of but doesn't preclude using this pattern.
It will work, and portably BUT you cannot use any virtual functions (which includes destructors).
I would recommend that instead of doing this you have Bar contain a Foo.
class Bar
{
private:
Foo mFoo;
};
I don't get why you don't simply make ret_foo a member method. Your current way makes your code awfully hard to understand. What is so difficult about using a real class in the first place with a member variable and get/set methods?
I know it's possible to subclass structs in C++, but the danger is that others won't be able to understand what you coded because it's so seldom that somebody actually does it. I'd go for a robust and common solution instead.
It probably will work but I do not believe it is guaranteed to. The following is a quote from ISO C++ 10/5:
A base class subobject might have a layout (3.7) different from the layout of a most derived object of the same type.
It's hard to see how in the "real world" this could actually be the case.
EDIT:
The bottom line is that the standard has not limited the number of places where a base class subobject layout can be different from a concrete object with that same Base type. The result is that any assumptions you may have, such as POD-ness etc. are not necessarily true for the base class subobject.
EDIT:
An alternative approach, and one whose behaviour is well defined is to make 'foo' a member of 'bar' and to provide a conversion operator where it's necessary.
class bar {
public:
int my_bar() {
return ret_foo( foo_ );
}
//
// This allows a 'bar' to be used where a 'foo' is expected
inline operator foo& () {
return foo_;
}
private:
foo foo_;
};