473,320 Members | 1,722 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

virtual slicing problem using std::vector<someclass>

Consider the following:

class parent {
public:
virtual void print() {
printf("Parent\n");
}
};

class child : public parent {
public:
void print() {
printf("Child\n");
}
};

My problem is that I want to use a container class (preferrably std::vector) to
contain ``parent''-objects. When I pass a ``child''-object to push_back()
slicing occurs:

child c;
std::vector<parent> v;
v.push_back(c);
v[0].print(); // produces "Parent\n", instead of "Child\n".

I troved the FAQ and found that my problem is directly related to item 31.8:

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit....html#faq-31.8

So one way of resolving this situation is to store pointers in the vector:

std::vector<parent*> v;
v.push_back(&c);
v[0]->print(); // produces "Child\n"

In my case, this is inconvenient, since I want to be able to use ``anonymous
objects'' (IIRC, that's the correct term):

v.push_back(child());
v[0].print();

Any suggestions what to do in my case? Seems I'm at an impasse, possibly
leading to a design decision about my code, but I wanted to check with you
guys first.

--
Christian Stigen Larsen -- http://csl.sublevel3.org
Jul 22 '05 #1
8 5016
Christian Stigen Larsen wrote:
Consider the following:

class parent {
public:
virtual void print() {
printf("Parent\n");
}
};

class child : public parent {
public:
void print() {
printf("Child\n");
}
};

My problem is that I want to use a container class (preferrably
std::vector) to
contain ``parent''-objects. When I pass a ``child''-object to push_back()
slicing occurs:

child c;
std::vector<parent> v;
v.push_back(c);
v[0].print(); // produces "Parent\n", instead of "Child\n".

I troved the FAQ and found that my problem is directly related to item
31.8:

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit....html#faq-31.8

So one way of resolving this situation is to store pointers in the vector:

std::vector<parent*> v;
v.push_back(&c);
v[0]->print(); // produces "Child\n"

In my case, this is inconvenient, since I want to be able to use
``anonymous objects'' (IIRC, that's the correct term):

v.push_back(child());
v[0].print();

Any suggestions what to do in my case? Seems I'm at an impasse, possibly
leading to a design decision about my code, but I wanted to check with you
guys first.


I'm afraid it is not possible to do anything near what you want, 'cause
doing

v.push_back(child())

with std::vector<parent> is equal to invoke a copy constructor.

The nearest way is doing

v.push_back(new child());

but I think this is even worse than the problem (there's not garbage
collection, it's not Java)
Jul 22 '05 #2
Quoting cecconeurale <fr****************@virgilio.it>:
| The nearest way is doing
|
| v.push_back(new child());
|
| but I think this is even worse than the problem (there's not garbage
| collection, it's not Java)

Actually, that's a brilliant idea! It was too obvious for me to even
think of it.

I will have to use a gc library though, e.g. Boehm-Weiser, but could possibly
do just as well with a smart-pointer or factory-like approach. Thanks!

--
Christian Stigen Larsen -- http://csl.sublevel3.org
Jul 22 '05 #3

"Christian Stigen Larsen" <cs******@newscache.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:sl*********************@tiger.stud.ntnu.no...
Consider the following:

class parent {
public:
virtual void print() {
printf("Parent\n");
}
};

class child : public parent {
public:
void print() {
printf("Child\n");
}
};

My problem is that I want to use a container class (preferrably std::vector) to contain ``parent''-objects. When I pass a ``child''-object to push_back()
slicing occurs:

child c;
std::vector<parent> v;
v.push_back(c);
v[0].print(); // produces "Parent\n", instead of "Child\n".

I troved the FAQ and found that my problem is directly related to item 31.8:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit....html#faq-31.8

So one way of resolving this situation is to store pointers in the vector:

std::vector<parent*> v;
v.push_back(&c);
v[0]->print(); // produces "Child\n"
The problem is that the collection triggers the construction of a copy which
is actually stored and thus slicing occurs. As you already mentioned the way
to go is to store pointers.

In my case, this is inconvenient, since I want to be able to use ``anonymous objects'' (IIRC, that's the correct term):

v.push_back(child());
v[0].print();


What exactly do you mean by "anonymous" objects? I don't really see why
storing pointers instead of copies is a problem?

Regards
Chris
Jul 22 '05 #4
Quoting Chris Theis <Ch*************@nospam.cern.ch>:
|> In my case, this is inconvenient, since I want to be able to use
|> ``anonymous objects'' (IIRC, that's the correct term):
|>
|> v.push_back(child());
|> v[0].print();
|
| What exactly do you mean by "anonymous" objects?

Basically, an object that just exists during a call to a function, like:

class Bar;

void foo(const Bar& b) {
//...
}

Calling

foo(Bar())

will produce an object Bar with no name, and its scope ends when foo() returns.

That's what I meant with "anonymous object", although I'm uncertain that's the
correct term.

| I don't really see why storing pointers instead of copies is a problem?

In short, I am writing a parser library, and just wanted a specific interface
for users.

After considering the insightful comments in this thread I've decided that
pointers actually *is* the way to go. Again, thanks!

--
Christian Stigen Larsen -- http://csl.sublevel3.org
Jul 22 '05 #5


Christian Stigen Larsen wrote:

Quoting Chris Theis <Ch*************@nospam.cern.ch>:
|> In my case, this is inconvenient, since I want to be able to use
|> ``anonymous objects'' (IIRC, that's the correct term):
|>
|> v.push_back(child());
|> v[0].print();
|
| What exactly do you mean by "anonymous" objects?

Basically, an object that just exists during a call to a function, like:

class Bar;

void foo(const Bar& b) {
//...
}

Calling

foo(Bar())

will produce an object Bar with no name, and its scope ends when foo() returns.


Usually this is called a 'temporary object'

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad.at
Jul 22 '05 #6

"cecconeurale" <fr****************@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:bp**********@news.flashnet.it...
Christian Stigen Larsen wrote:
[SNIP]
I'm afraid it is not possible to do anything near what you want, 'cause
doing

v.push_back(child())

with std::vector<parent> is equal to invoke a copy constructor.

The nearest way is doing

v.push_back(new child());

but I think this is even worse than the problem
It's at least one step further towards memory or resource leaks.
(there's not garbage
collection, it's not Java)


Well, what's the need for a garbage collection in this case? C++ supplies
the keyword delete which perfectly fulfills the need to clean up. I don't
want this to become a discussion about the advantages/disadvantages of
garbage collections but this simple problem can certainly be accomplished
without one.

Chris
Jul 22 '05 #7

"Christian Stigen Larsen" <cs******@newscache.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:sl*********************@tiger.stud.ntnu.no...
Quoting cecconeurale <fr****************@virgilio.it>:
| The nearest way is doing
|
| v.push_back(new child());
|
| but I think this is even worse than the problem (there's not garbage
| collection, it's not Java)

Actually, that's a brilliant idea! It was too obvious for me to even
think of it.
IMHO the introduction of a full blown sophistacted concept like a garbage
collection just to avoid slicing is not such a hot idea. In some cases it's
even better to store pointers instead of copies because this will reduce
unnecessary object duplication.

I will have to use a gc library though, e.g. Boehm-Weiser, but could possibly do just as well with a smart-pointer or factory-like approach. Thanks!


In case you want somebody else to take care of deleting the objects you
created on the heap you can certainly stick to smart_pointers.

Regards
Chris
Jul 22 '05 #8
Perhaps you can store a smart pointer in the vector which will give
you the right polymorphic behaviour and perform the cleanup.

cs******@newscache.ntnu.no (Christian Stigen Larsen) wrote in message news:<sl*********************@tiger.stud.ntnu.no>. ..
Consider the following:

class parent {
public:
virtual void print() {
printf("Parent\n");
}
};

class child : public parent {
public:
void print() {
printf("Child\n");
}
};

My problem is that I want to use a container class (preferrably std::vector) to
contain ``parent''-objects. When I pass a ``child''-object to push_back()
slicing occurs:

child c;
std::vector<parent> v;
v.push_back(c);
v[0].print(); // produces "Parent\n", instead of "Child\n".

I troved the FAQ and found that my problem is directly related to item 31.8:

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit....html#faq-31.8

So one way of resolving this situation is to store pointers in the vector:

std::vector<parent*> v;
v.push_back(&c);
v[0]->print(); // produces "Child\n"

In my case, this is inconvenient, since I want to be able to use ``anonymous
objects'' (IIRC, that's the correct term):

v.push_back(child());
v[0].print();

Any suggestions what to do in my case? Seems I'm at an impasse, possibly
leading to a design decision about my code, but I wanted to check with you
guys first.

Jul 22 '05 #9

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

2
by: pauldepstein | last post by:
Suppose a vector taking elements in SomeClass is resized from length 5 to length 8 using the resize method. SomeClass is a class which takes a variety of constructors SomeClass contains a...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.