Delegation question...

[barcaroller]

What is the common way/design-pattern (if any) in C++ for delegating
function calls that are not handled by a certain class. Public
inheritance would be one way but not all classes are meant to inherit
from (e.g. STL).
Example:

class A
{
public:
foo();

private:
set<stringmyset ;
}

A myObj;
myObj.insert(); // compiler error of course
Is there some mechanism (direct or indirect) where a function that is
not handled by myObj gets delegated to another object (e.g. myset)?

[Daniel Pitts]

barcaroller wrote:

What is the common way/design-pattern (if any) in C++ for delegating
function calls that are not handled by a certain class. Public
inheritance would be one way but not all classes are meant to inherit
from (e.g. STL).
Example:

class A
{
public:
foo();

private:
set<stringmyset ;
}

A myObj;
myObj.insert(); // compiler error of course
Is there some mechanism (direct or indirect) where a function that is
not handled by myObj gets delegated to another object (e.g. myset)?

I believe you can add the following to your class:
set<string&oper ator->() { return myset; }

and then you can do myObj->insert()
Although, this seems a bit troublesome.

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity .net/wordpress/>

[Ian Collins]

barcaroller wrote:

What is the common way/design-pattern (if any) in C++ for delegating
function calls that are not handled by a certain class. Public
inheritance would be one way but not all classes are meant to inherit
from (e.g. STL).
Example:

class A
{
public:
foo();

private:
set<stringmyset ;
}

A myObj;
myObj.insert(); // compiler error of course
Is there some mechanism (direct or indirect) where a function that is
not handled by myObj gets delegated to another object (e.g. myset)?

No, C++ does not support this form of delegation.

--
Ian Collins.

[James Kanze]

On 24 mai, 00:43, Ian Collins <[e-mail] mwrote:

barcaroller wrote:

What is the common way/design-pattern (if any) in C++ for delegating
function calls that are not handled by a certain class. Public
inheritance would be one way but not all classes are meant to inherit
from (e.g. STL).

Example:

class A
{
public:
foo();
private:
set<stringmyset ;
}

A myObj;
myObj.insert(); // compiler error of course

Is there some mechanism (direct or indirect) where a function that is
not handled by myObj gets delegated to another object (e.g. myset)?

No, C++ does not support this form of delegation.

Not directly. The closest you can come, I think, is to use
private inheritance and using declarations.

Note that this type of delegation is effectively exposing part
of your internals, to some degree. Although significantly
wordier, I rather favor being explicit in forwarding, so that
the complete interface of the object isn't available. Most of
the time, at least; I also have at least one case where the
non-mutable interface of the object is exactly that of
std::vector< std::string and I can conceive of others. Which
means that I do have to duplicate a lot (including things like
typedef's). But it's not 100% duplication either; I have
iterator typedefed to std::vector<std ::string>::cons t_iterator,
for example.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[=?UTF-8?B?RXJpayBXaWtzdHLDtm0=?=]

On 2008-05-23 23:58, barcaroller wrote:

What is the common way/design-pattern (if any) in C++ for delegating
function calls that are not handled by a certain class. Public
inheritance would be one way but not all classes are meant to inherit
from (e.g. STL).
Example:

class A
{
public:
foo();

private:
set<stringmyset ;
}

A myObj;
myObj.insert(); // compiler error of course
Is there some mechanism (direct or indirect) where a function that is
not handled by myObj gets delegated to another object (e.g. myset)?

Private inheritance is one way to do it:

#include <iostream>

class Foo
{
public:
void print() { std::cout << "Foo\n"; }
};

class Bar : private Foo
{
public:
using Foo::print;
};

int main()
{
Bar b;
b.print();
}

But most often I would recommend to manually do the delegation:

#include <iostream>

class Foo
{
public:
void print() { std::cout << "Foo\n"; }
};

class Bar
{
Foo f;
public:
void print() { f.print(); }
};

int main()
{
Bar b;
b.print();
}

--
Erik Wikström

[Ian Collins]

James Kanze wrote:

On 24 mai, 00:43, Ian Collins <[e-mail] mwrote:

>barcaroller wrote:

>>What is the common way/design-pattern (if any) in C++ for delegating
function calls that are not handled by a certain class. Public
inheritance would be one way but not all classes are meant to inherit
from (e.g. STL).

>>Example:

>> class A
{
public:
foo();
private:
set<stringmyset ;
}

>> A myObj;
myObj.insert(); // compiler error of course

>>Is there some mechanism (direct or indirect) where a function that is
not handled by myObj gets delegated to another object (e.g. myset)?

>No, C++ does not support this form of delegation.

Not directly. The closest you can come, I think, is to use
private inheritance and using declarations.

I was going to suggest that technique, but decided against it as the OP
wanted to delegate members of std::set. I wouldn't recommend deriving
from a standard container.

--
Ian Collins.

[James Kanze]

On May 24, 9:47 am, Ian Collins <[e-mail] mwrote:

[...]

I was going to suggest that technique, but decided against it as the OP
wanted to delegate members of std::set. I wouldn't recommend deriving
from a standard container.

Not even privately? I have no problems with private inheritance
from a standard container; private inheritance is part of the
implementation.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[Ian Collins]

James Kanze wrote:

On May 24, 9:47 am, Ian Collins <[e-mail] mwrote:

[...]

>I was going to suggest that technique, but decided against it as the OP
wanted to delegate members of std::set. I wouldn't recommend deriving
from a standard container.

Not even privately? I have no problems with private inheritance
from a standard container; private inheritance is part of the
implementation.

Yes, you're right, I overlooked private inheritance.

--
Ian Collins.

[tedzhou]

On May 24, 5:19*pm, Ian Collins <[e-mail] mwrote:

James Kanze wrote:

On May 24, 9:47 am, Ian Collins <[e-mail] mwrote:

* * [...]

I was going to suggest that technique, but decided against it as the OP
wanted to delegate members of std::set. *I wouldn't recommend deriving
from a standard container.

Not even privately? *I have no problems with private inheritance
from a standard container; private inheritance is part of the
implementation.

Yes, you're right, I overlooked private inheritance.

Private inheritance is not suggested on standard container either.
Because the standard containers are not designed for inheritance at
all.
Just think about the polymorphism and virtual destruction , then
you'll
get the conclusion that inheritance from standard containors will be
dangerous.

[Ian Collins]

tedzhou wrote:

On May 24, 5:19 pm, Ian Collins <[e-mail] mwrote:

>James Kanze wrote:

>>On May 24, 9:47 am, Ian Collins <[e-mail] mwrote:
[...]
I was going to suggest that technique, but decided against it as the OP
wanted to delegate members of std::set. I wouldn't recommend deriving
from a standard container.
Not even privately? I have no problems with private inheritance
from a standard container; private inheritance is part of the
implementatio n.

Yes, you're right, I overlooked private inheritance.

Private inheritance is not suggested on standard container either.
Because the standard containers are not designed for inheritance at
all.
Just think about the polymorphism and virtual destruction , then
you'll
get the conclusion that inheritance from standard containors will be
dangerous.

With public inheritance maybe, but you can't point a base* to a derived
object if derived uses private inheritance. Private inheritance hides
the fact that a derived is a base. Try

class base {};
class derived : base {};

base* p = new derived;

--
Ian Collins.