Inheriting from std::vector?

[BCC]

Hi,

A colleague has some code like this:

class CMyObject {
// Bunch of Member functions
}

class CMyObjectList: public std::vector<CMy Object>
{
// Bunch of member functions
}

I need to inherit the functionality of his object and list as well as add
some of my own:

class CMyPersonalObje ct: public CMyObject
{
// More stuff
}

class CMyPersonalObje ctList: public CMyObjectList
{
// More stuff
}

But if I pass in CMyPersonalObje ctList to a function, and then try to assign
the CMyPersonalObje ct to a local variable of that type, I get a compiler
error telling me that I cannot convert CMyObject to CMyPersonalObje ct... the
compiler thinks the list I passed in is made of the parent objects.

What is going on and how do I fix it?

Thanks,
B

[lilburne]

BCC wrote:

But if I pass in CMyPersonalObje ctList to a function, and then try to assign
the CMyPersonalObje ct to a local variable of that type, I get a compiler
error telling me that I cannot convert CMyObject to CMyPersonalObje ct... the
compiler thinks the list I passed in is made of the parent objects.

What is going on and how do I fix it?

Would need to see the code where the assignment is made.
However, as std::vector doesn't have a virtual destructor it
shouldn't really be being used as a base class. That isn't
your actual problem though.

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:47:14 GMT, "BCC" <br***@akanta.c om> wrote:

A colleague has some code like this:

class CMyObject {
// Bunch of Member functions
}
Missing semicolon.
class CMyObjectList: public std::vector<CMy Object>
{
// Bunch of member functions
}
Ditto.

Without further information this inheritance is a little suspicious.

I can thing of good reasons to inherit from std::string, but not std::vector.

I need to inherit the functionality of his object and list as well as add
some of my own:

class CMyPersonalObje ct: public CMyObject
{
// More stuff
}

class CMyPersonalObje ctList: public CMyObjectList
{
// More stuff
}

But if I pass in CMyPersonalObje ctList to a function, and then try to assign
the CMyPersonalObje ct to a local variable of that type,
There is no relationship between CMyPersonalObje ctList and CMyPersonalObje ct
in what you have shown, so the above seems meaningless.
I get a compiler
error telling me that I cannot convert CMyObject to CMyPersonalObje ct...
The compiler is right, you cannot do that unless you provide a conversion.
the compiler thinks the list I passed in is made of the parent objects.
Where on earth did you get that absurd idea? Compilers don't think.
What is going on
See e.g. <url: http://news.google.com/>.
and how do I fix it?

Perhaps follow the advice of Michael Moore?

[Grzegorz Sakrejda]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:47:14 GMT, BCC <br***@akanta.c om> wrote:

Hi,

A colleague has some code like this:

class CMyObject {
// Bunch of Member functions
}

class CMyObjectList: public std::vector<CMy Object>
{
// Bunch of member functions
}

I need to inherit the functionality of his object and list as well as add
some of my own:

class CMyPersonalObje ct: public CMyObject
{
// More stuff
}

class CMyPersonalObje ctList: public CMyObjectList
{
// More stuff
}

But if I pass in CMyPersonalObje ctList to a function, and then try to
assign
the CMyPersonalObje ct to a local variable of that type, I get a compiler
error telling me that I cannot convert CMyObject to CMyPersonalObje ct...
the
compiler thinks the list I passed in is made of the parent objects.

What is going on and how do I fix it?

Thanks,
B

std::vector is a template . CMyObjectList should also be a template, at
least if you want to have personalobject list.

template <class T> CObjectList : public std::vector<T> {
some more
};

typedef CObjectList<CMy PersonalObject> CMyPersonalObje ctList;
--
grzegorz

[Mike Wahler]

"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no > wrote in message
news:3f******** ********@News.C IS.DFN.DE...

the compiler thinks the list I passed in is made of the parent objects.

Where on earth did you get that absurd idea? Compilers don't think.

Understatement of the year. :-)

-Mike

[Davlet Panech]

"BCC" <br***@akanta.c om> wrote in message
news:6M******** ************@ne wssvr21.news.pr odigy.com...

Hi,

A colleague has some code like this:

class CMyObject {
// Bunch of Member functions
}

class CMyObjectList: public std::vector<CMy Object>
{
// Bunch of member functions
}

I need to inherit the functionality of his object and list as well as add
some of my own:

class CMyPersonalObje ct: public CMyObject
{
// More stuff
}

class CMyPersonalObje ctList: public CMyObjectList
{
// More stuff
}

But if I pass in CMyPersonalObje ctList to a function, and then try to assign the CMyPersonalObje ct to a local variable of that type, I get a compiler
error telling me that I cannot convert CMyObject to CMyPersonalObje ct... the compiler thinks the list I passed in is made of the parent objects.
It won't work, because the vector contains CMyObjects, not
CMyPersonalObje cts. So whenever you insert a CMyPersonalObje ct in that
vector, it'll get "truncated" to it's base type. You might be able to use a
vector of pointers to (dynamically-allocated) CMyObjects (+derivatives)
instead, but you'll run into other problems:
- Manual memory allocation is difficult and error-prone (but "smart pointer"
libraries might help, see for example www.boost.org )
- You'll have to downcast the stored addresses all the time
- I think it is wrong to have CMyPersonalObje ctList as a subclass of
CMyObjectList, because such hierarchy permits insertions of CMyObjects into
CMyPersonalObje ctList (you might want to do a search on "Liskov Substitution
Principle" to learn why this is a bad idea. For example read this article:
http://www.brent.worden.org/articles...rinciple.html).

What exactly are you trying to do? Maybe there's a better way to do it.

What is going on and how do I fix it?

Thanks,
B

[David Rubin]

Mike Wahler wrote:

"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no > wrote in message
news:3f******** ********@News.C IS.DFN.DE...

the compiler thinks the list I passed in is made of the parent objects.

Where on earth did you get that absurd idea? Compilers don't think.

Understatement of the year. :-)

OP must have confused "The Compiler That Thinks" with "The Thinking
Man's Compiler."

/david :-)

--
"As a scientist, Throckmorton knew that if he were ever to break wind in
the echo chamber, he would never hear the end of it."

[Rolf Magnus]

lilburne wrote:

However, as std::vector doesn't have a virtual destructor it
shouldn't really be being used as a base class.

There is no problem with using it as a base class as long as you don't
destroy the object through a pointer to std::vector.

[lilburne]

Rolf Magnus wrote:

lilburne wrote:

However, as std::vector doesn't have a virtual destructor it
shouldn't really be being used as a base class.

There is no problem with using it as a base class as long as you don't
destroy the object through a pointer to std::vector.

And you ensure that how?

[Pete Becker]

lilburne wrote:

Rolf Magnus wrote:

lilburne wrote:

However, as std::vector doesn't have a virtual destructor it
shouldn't really be being used as a base class.

There is no problem with using it as a base class as long as you don't
destroy the object through a pointer to std::vector.

And you ensure that how?

You don't do it.

--

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