Please consider the following code:
class Abstract
{
public:
virtual ~Abstract() {}
virtual void Method() = 0;
};
class Concrete : public virtual Abstract
{
private:
virtual void Method() {}
};
void UseAbstract()
{
Concrete concrete;
Abstract& abstract = concrete;
abstract.Method ();
}
The implementation for Abstract::Metho d provided in the Concrete class
is private even though the declaration of the method is public in the
derived base class. Yet, compiling the code on three different
compilers produces no errors or warnings. I think many developer might
find this surprising and puzzling. I, myself, am not sure what to
think of it.
The end effect is that the implementation for the Abstract class works
as expected. An instance of Concrete can be used as an Abstract
instance and it works as expected with respect to the Abstract
interface. Method is public for Abstract and can be accessed just
fine, even though it is private with respect to its Concrete
implementation.
However, it seems that there is something wrong, or at least worrisome
about the fact that this can be done.
What can people say about the correctness of this code?
If it is correct, what are the reasons classes are allow to behave this
way? 7 1919
<tr*********@ve rizon.net> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ t39g2000cwt.goo glegroups.com Please consider the following code:
class Abstract { public: virtual ~Abstract() {} virtual void Method() = 0; };
class Concrete : public virtual Abstract { private: virtual void Method() {} };
void UseAbstract() { Concrete concrete; Abstract& abstract = concrete;
abstract.Method (); }
The implementation for Abstract::Metho d provided in the Concrete class is private even though the declaration of the method is public in the derived base class. Yet, compiling the code on three different compilers produces no errors or warnings. I think many developer might find this surprising and puzzling. I, myself, am not sure what to think of it.
What object a reference refers to cannot always be known at compile time but
may instead only be known at run time. Access rules are enforced at compile
time, so access rules cannot depend on the object referred to. Instead, they
depend on the type of the reference, since this is known at compile time.
The type of abstract is "reference to Abstract" and Method() is public in
Abstract. Accordingly, access must be allowed.
--
John Carson
John Carson wrote: What object a reference refers to cannot always be known at compile time but may instead only be known at run time. Access rules are enforced at compile time, so access rules cannot depend on the object referred to. Instead, they depend on the type of the reference, since this is known at compile time. The type of abstract is "reference to Abstract" and Method() is public in Abstract. Accordingly, access must be allowed.
-- John Carson
Thanks John. That makes sense.
On 2006-02-26, tr*********@ver izon.net <tr*********@ve rizon.net> wrote: Please consider the following code:
class Abstract { public: virtual ~Abstract() {} virtual void Method() = 0; };
class Concrete : public virtual Abstract { private: virtual void Method() {} };
void UseAbstract() { Concrete concrete; Abstract& abstract = concrete;
abstract.Method (); }
The implementation for Abstract::Metho d provided in the Concrete class is private even though the declaration of the method is public in the derived base class. Yet, compiling the code on three different compilers produces no errors or warnings. I think many developer might find this surprising and puzzling. I, myself, am not sure what to think of it.
It is this way because the alternative seemed worse. The C++ designers
deemed it would be horrible if changing the access specification of a
member function somewhere in your class hierarchy could alter the
resolution of a virtual function call, or cause your program to no
longer compile. Consider multiple inheritance:
class B {
public:
virtual void foo();
};
class X: public B {
private:
void foo();
};
class Y: public B {
public:
void foo();
};
class Fubar: public X, Y {
public:
void foo();
};
In this hierarchy, under a rule that made the private foo in X
inaccessible, there would be no ambiguity in the following call in
function fnagn. It would have to resolve to the public override in B.
void fnagn(Fubar* f)
{
f->foo();
}
But if the access specification of foo in X were then changed to
public, suddenly your code would not even compile.
So the actual rules make your code more robust, in theory. The call to
foo in fnagn is ambiguous, despite foo in X being private.
--
Neil Cerutti
Neil Cerutti wrote: But if the access specification of foo in X were then changed to public, suddenly your code would not even compile.
The other odious alternative enforces access at runtime. That would add
extra opcodes to all the virtual functions that don't need them.
The OP should research Design Patterns. Sometimes a method's access is a
valid technique.
--
Phlip http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Phlip wrote: Neil Cerutti wrote:
But if the access specification of foo in X were then changed to public, suddenly your code would not even compile. The other odious alternative enforces access at runtime. That would add extra opcodes to all the virtual functions that don't need them.
The OP should research Design Patterns. Sometimes
changing!
a method's access is a valid technique.
--
Phlip http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
On 2006-02-27, Neil Cerutti <le*******@emai l.com> wrote: On 2006-02-26, tr*********@ver izon.net <tr*********@ve rizon.net> wrote: It is this way because the alternative seemed worse. The C++ designers deemed it would be horrible if changing the access specification of a member function somewhere in your class hierarchy could alter the resolution of a virtual function call, or cause your program to no longer compile. Consider multiple inheritance:
class B { public: virtual void foo(); };
class X: public B { private: void foo(); };
class Y: public B { public: void foo(); };
class Fubar: public X, Y { public: void foo(); };
In this hierarchy, under a rule that made the private foo in X inaccessible, there would be no ambiguity in the following call in function fnagn. It would have to resolve to the public override in B.
void fnagn(Fubar* f) { f->foo(); }
It seems people got the point, but there were errors in my example code.
Fubar should not declare a function foo, and fnagn should receive
pointer to B.
But if the access specification of foo in X were then changed to public, suddenly your code would not even compile.
So the actual rules make your code more robust, in theory. The call to foo in fnagn is ambiguous, despite foo in X being private.
--
Neil Cerutti
You can't give him that cutback lane. He's so fast, and he sees
it so well. He can also run away from you if he gets a little
bit of crack. --Dick Lebeau tr*********@ver izon.net wrote: Please consider the following code:
class Abstract { public: virtual ~Abstract() {} virtual void Method() = 0; };
class Concrete : public virtual Abstract { private: virtual void Method() {} };
void UseAbstract() { Concrete concrete; Abstract& abstract = concrete;
abstract.Method (); }
The implementation for Abstract::Metho d provided in the Concrete class is private even though the declaration of the method is public in the derived base class. Yet, compiling the code on three different compilers produces no errors or warnings. I think many developer might find this surprising and puzzling. I, myself, am not sure what to think of it.
The end effect is that the implementation for the Abstract class works as expected. An instance of Concrete can be used as an Abstract instance and it works as expected with respect to the Abstract interface. Method is public for Abstract and can be accessed just fine, even though it is private with respect to its Concrete implementation.
However, it seems that there is something wrong, or at least worrisome about the fact that this can be done.
What can people say about the correctness of this code? If it is correct, what are the reasons classes are allow to behave this way?
The rule of thumb is that only the names of things can be made private,
not the things themselves. I think the main reason for this is that
it's
not possible at (least currently) to have ironclad protection of
members
that could not be defeated with casts, and have no run-time overhead.
In the particular example you give, I think there are cases where it
could actually be useful. The purpose of private is for the designer
of the class to prevent class users from creating undesired
dependencies
on cretain specifics of the class definition. What the above code is
saying is "don't write any code for Concrete instances using 'method()'
that would not also work for all instances of Abstract". This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics |
by: vijay |
last post by:
Hello
I wanted to understand a contradictory design of C++
class A
{public:
virtual void f(){ cout<<" base f"<<endl; }
};
class B:public A
{
|
by: Dave |
last post by:
Hello all,
Suppose that derived inherits privately from base. A base pointer may not
be made to point at a derived object in this case. I understand that is
exactly what is supposed to happen and I understand that this is explicitly
dictated by the Standard.
I'm trying to understand the diagnostic my compiler generates in this case
though:
|
by: Anon Email |
last post by:
Hi people,
I'm learning about header files in C++. The following is code from
Bartosz Milewski:
// Code
const int maxStack = 16;
class IStack
|
by: Manolis |
last post by:
Hi,
I was wondering if there is any way to make two objects of the same
class to be able to access each other's private data, like this:
class A {
public:
void access( const A& a ) {cout<<"a.value="<<a.value<<endl; }
private:
int value;
|
by: Noah Coad [MVP .NET/C#] |
last post by:
How do you make a member of a class mandatory to override with a _new_
definition? For example, when inheriting from
System.Collections.CollectionBase, you are required to implement certain
methods, such as public void Add(MyClass c).
How can I enforce the same behavior (of requiring to implement a member with
a new return type in an inherited class) in the master class (similar to the
CollectionBase)?
I have a class called...
| |
by: Joel |
last post by:
Why does this work:
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Class1
{
static void Main(string args)
|
by: jopperdepopper |
last post by:
Hi,
finally giving php 5 a go, and going over the new approach to classes.
Can someone clarify the public, private and protected to me?
I quote the php manual: "The visibility of a property or method can be
defined by prefixing the declaration with the keywords: public,
protected or private. Public declared items can be accessed
everywhere."
|
by: John Goche |
last post by:
Hello,
page 202 of Symbian OS Explained by Jo Stichbury states
"All virtual functions, public, protected or private, should be
exported"
then page 203 states
"In the rare cases where a pure virtual function body
|
by: v4vijayakumar |
last post by:
Why we need "virtual private member functions"? Why it is not an
(compile time) error?
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
| |
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| |
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |