inheritance - minor confusion.....

[ma740988]

Prefer composition to inheritance (can't recall which text I stole that
line from) is one of the fundamental tenets thats engrained in my mind.
Having said that inheritance requires careful thought. To compound
things, when dealing with inheritance 'virtuality' can only be
experienced through base pointers to derived.
There are ocassions though that I dont need a (particulay) 'virtual'
function in base. In which case I'll have to used derived directly.

So now:

# include<iostrea m>

class base {
protected:
base() {}
virtual ~base() = 0 {}
public:
virtual void override_func() {}
// more
};

class derived : public base
{
public:
derived() {}
~derived() {}
void do_start() {}; // I REALLY do need a do_start in base..

void override_func() {
// implementation
}
// more
};

int main() {
derived *d = new (std::no_throw) derived(); // use derived directly
d->do_start();
d->override_func( );
delete d;
}

For some reason I'm led to believe that if you're unable to access
derived members through a base pointer, something was amiss about your
design (as in the case above). Am I off on this?

As always thanks in advance.

[Pete Becker]

ma******@pegasu s.cc.ucf.edu wrote:

For some reason I'm led to believe that if you're unable to access
derived members through a base pointer, something was amiss about your
design (as in the case above). Am I off on this?

There is nothing in your code example that requires inheritance. Without
an explanation of the purpose of the class base it's impossible to give
advice on whether its interface is correct.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Pete Becker:

ma******@pegasu s.cc.ucf.edu wrote:

For some reason I'm led to believe that if you're unable to access
derived members through a base pointer, something was amiss about your
design (as in the case above). Am I off on this?

There is nothing in your code example that requires inheritance. Without
an explanation of the purpose of the class base it's impossible to give
advice on whether its interface is correct.

Agreed, but much of the general point of inheritance is often to introduce
extras, so as a general guideline (not related to any particular example) I
think the OP's belief is counter-productive and ill-adviced: stuffing every
possible public derived class member function as a virtual member function
in the top-most base class is, most often, very bad design.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[ma740988]

| stuffing every possible public derived class member function as a
virtual member function
| in the top-most base class is, most often, very bad design.

Alf, understood and in which case there's no need to use a base pointer
for access and that's perfectly fine. You see, often times I run
across a class that uses inheritances. A derived class needs an
additional member function. Trouble is this _new_ member function is
only necessary in said class. Adding a virtual to the base for access
via a base class pointer seems counterproducti ve. In my initial post
the do_start member function is one such example of a case where it's
not necessary for a virtual member function in the base class.

[Jim Langston]

<ma******@pegas us.cc.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:11******** *************@f 14g2000cwb.goog legroups.com...

| stuffing every possible public derived class member function as a
virtual member function
| in the top-most base class is, most often, very bad design.

Alf, understood and in which case there's no need to use a base pointer
for access and that's perfectly fine. You see, often times I run
across a class that uses inheritances. A derived class needs an
additional member function. Trouble is this _new_ member function is
only necessary in said class. Adding a virtual to the base for access
via a base class pointer seems counterproducti ve. In my initial post
the do_start member function is one such example of a case where it's
not necessary for a virtual member function in the base class.

The following would work, with the exception of not being able to delete the
object :/

#include<iostre am>
class base
{
protected:
base() {}
virtual ~base() = 0 {}
public:
virtual void override_func() {}
// more
};

class derived : public base
{
public:
derived() {}
~derived() {}
void do_start() {}; // I REALLY do need a do_start in base..
void override_func() {
// implementation
}
// more
};

int main()
{
base *b = new derived; // use through base pointer
if ( dynamic_cast<de rived*>(b) != NULL )
dynamic_cast<de rived*>(b)->do_start();
b->override_func( );
// delete b; // Compile Error, 'base::base' : cannot access protected
member declared in class 'base'

}

Since no one else suggested this approach, this makes me think I don't
understand the issue. Did I walk into the middle of a discussion?

You made the statement:
"For some reason I'm led to believe that if you're unable to access
derived members through a base pointer, something was amiss about your
design (as in the case above). Am I off on this?"

But as I've shown above (with the exception of the protected destructor in
base) you can access derived members though a base pointer as long as you
cast it to the derived (and is an approach I used quite successfully in an
application with much polymorphism).

What am I missing here?

[Bob Hairgrove]

On 22 Aug 2005 10:37:52 -0700, ma******@pegasu s.cc.ucf.edu wrote:

Prefer composition to inheritance (can't recall which text I stole that
line from) is one of the fundamental tenets thats engrained in my mind.
Having said that inheritance requires careful thought. To compound
things, when dealing with inheritance 'virtuality' can only be
experienced through base pointers to derived.
There are ocassions though that I dont need a (particulay) 'virtual'
function in base. In which case I'll have to used derived directly.

So now:

# include<iostrea m>

class base {
protected:
base() {}
virtual ~base() = 0 {}
public:
virtual void override_func() {}
// more
};

class derived : public base
{
public:
derived() {}
~derived() {}
void do_start() {}; // I REALLY do need a do_start in base..

void override_func() {
// implementation
}
// more
};

int main() {
derived *d = new (std::no_throw) derived(); // use derived directly
d->do_start();
d->override_func( );
delete d;
}

For some reason I'm led to believe that if you're unable to access
derived members through a base pointer, something was amiss about your
design (as in the case above). Am I off on this?

As always thanks in advance.

As others have already pointed out, it doesn't make sense to discuss
whether or not inheritance is the appropriate mechanism for solving
your problem because we don't know what the problem is. I have found
inheritance useful for defining a common interface which can be used
by objects of other classes which don't need to know the derived
type(s). Here are some examples of how inheritance can be used like
this:

(a) A database query. Some queries read, some write, yet there is an
awful lot of functionality shared between the two. For example, the
database connection object need not always know what kind of query it
is just to fetch the data associated with an error the query might
have produced;

(b) You have an application which needs to read different kinds of
barcodes and print the data as output to an XML file. There is an
abstract base class "Barcode" which knows how to print its data. All
the application needs to know how to call is the barcde's virtual
"PrintMe()" function;

(c) You have a collection of different graphic shapes (circles,
squares, triangles, etc.) and all your collection needs to do is to
print out each shape's area. Only the derived shape classes know how
to do that, so there is an abstract class "Shape" which has a virtual
function "CalcArea() " which is overridden by each derived class.

You get the idea?

--
Bob Hairgrove
No**********@Ho me.com