constness and inheritance

[sndive]

struct A {
virtual int foo(const int bar);
};

int A::foo(const int bar)
{
return 0;
}
struct B : public A {
int foo(int bar);
};
int B::foo(int bar)
{
return 1;
}

int
main()
{
A *p = new B;
const int baz=-1;
int r = p->foo(baz);
return 0;
}

here B::foo is called (tried with g++3.2.3)
i wonder if it's a problem for non elementary types in parameters
since derived function can modify the baz argument with impunity
contrary to the expectations of the caller.
Granted, B::foo could've taken bar as the const parameter
and casted to non const but there are no casts of any
kind in the program above.

[Victor Bazarov]

sn****@gmail.com wrote:

struct A {
virtual int foo(const int bar);
};

int A::foo(const int bar)
{
return 0;
}
struct B : public A {
int foo(int bar);

This 'foo' *overrides* 'A::foo' because it has exactly same type.

};
int B::foo(int bar)
{
return 1;
}

int
main()
{
A *p = new B;
const int baz=-1;
int r = p->foo(baz);
return 0;
}

here B::foo is called (tried with g++3.2.3)

As it bloody well should.

i wonder if it's a problem for non elementary types in parameters
since derived function can modify the baz argument with impunity
contrary to the expectations of the caller.

Top-level const qualifiers are ignored in the function declaration
as far as type matching is concerned. In your program 'B::foo'
and 'A::foo' have *exactly same* type.

Granted, B::foo could've taken bar as the const parameter
and casted to non const but there are no casts of any
kind in the program above.

The top-level 'const' doesn't matter.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[James Kanze]

On Jul 26, 8:05 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

struct A {
virtual int foo(const int bar);
};

int A::foo(const int bar)
{
return 0;}

struct B : public A {
int foo(int bar);};

int B::foo(int bar)
{
return 1;
}

int
main()
{
A *p = new B;
const int baz=-1;
int r = p->foo(baz);
return 0;
}

here B::foo is called (tried with g++3.2.3)

Correct. Top level const in a function argument is ignored in
function types.

i wonder if it's a problem for non elementary types in parameters
since derived function can modify the baz argument with impunity
contrary to the expectations of the caller.

What expectations of the caller? All the caller can expect is
never to see the parameter. It's call by copy, remember.

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