Solved

Inheritance and 'virtual'

Posted on 2004-08-26
8
304 Views
Last Modified: 2013-11-15
class Map
{
   void Put(const char*, const char*);
   // ...
}

class Settings : public Map
{
   Put(const char*, const char*);
   // ...
}


Obviously this code is wrong as Map::Put() is not virtual. What I am wanting is for Settings to be able to do a small bit of processing *before* passing the parameters up to Map::Put(), but don't want the implementation of Map::Put() to be completely overridable. I don't want to have to change the inheritance to private.

Is this acheivable?
--Rob
0
Comment
Question by:boycy
  • 4
  • 3
8 Comments
 
LVL 13

Expert Comment

by:SteH
ID: 11900839
class Map
{
   virtual void Put(const char*, const char*);
   // ...
}

class Settings : public Map
{
   Put(const char*, const char*);
   // ...
}


Settings::Put (const char* pc1, const char* pc2)
{
  //do your processing here
  Map::Put (pc1, pc2);
}
0
 
LVL 6

Author Comment

by:boycy
ID: 11900949
Quote "don't want the implementation of Map::Put() to be completely overridable".

--Rob
0
 
LVL 13

Accepted Solution

by:
SteH earned 100 total points
ID: 11900974
Can you then specify what you exactly want to do. You can make the function non virtual and do the same.
class Map
{
   void Put(const char*, const char*);
   // ...
}

class Settings : public Map
{
   void Put(const char*, const char*);
   // ...
}


Settings::Put (const char* pc1, const char* pc2)
{
  //do your processing here before calling
  Map::Put (pc1, pc2);
}

or do you need only parts of the functionality of Map::Put implemented? In that case you could seperate that part into another function of Map and call this function from Map::Put and Settings::Put.
0
 
LVL 6

Author Comment

by:boycy
ID: 11901016
Overriding a non-virtual function will compile but the behaviour is undefined.
I want all of Map::Put() to be run as part of Settings::Put() after some extra checking.

Basically, the second char* for Map::Put() may be 0 and I need it to stay that way, and Map::Put() should not be completely re-implementable therefore shouldn't be virtual.
Settings::Put() needs to impose a restriction that the second char* may *not* be 0 before passing the parameters on to Map::Put().

Cheers,
Rob
0
Optimizing Cloud Backup for Low Bandwidth

With cloud storage prices going down a growing number of SMBs start to use it for backup storage. Unfortunately, business data volume rarely fits the average Internet speed. This article provides an overview of main Internet speed challenges and reveals backup best practices.

 
LVL 13

Expert Comment

by:SteH
ID: 11901067
Why is the behaviour undefined. A virtual function will do a check at runtime which version to call. A non virtual function is linked at compile time. So you can only call Settings::Put using a pointer to or and object of class Settings. You need to check that you have a proper object for calling it. Both of these functions are defined in different namespaces (the classes) so what is undefined?
0
 
LVL 6

Author Comment

by:boycy
ID: 11901155
OK, I take it back - I'd read a couple of hours ago that overriding non-virtuals causes undefined behaviour, but just read in another place that it's legal (but immoral!).

Settings::Put(const char*psz1, const char *psz2)
{
   if (psz2 == 0)
      throw ...;
   Map::Put(psz1, psz2);
}

Assuming that Map::Put is a non-virtual function, is this completely legal valid code which won't produce any nasty behaviour or do anything unexpected?

Rob
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:carribus
ID: 11901209
virtual functions are provided for polymorphism, i.e. using a base class pointer to call overridden functions in derived classes... so in your case:

Map*   pMapObj = new Settings;

pMap->Put();

if your Put function was virtual in Map, then in the above code, the Settings::Put() function would be called. However, if the Map function is NOT virtual, the Map::Put() function will be called.

SteH is correct. You literally override the Map::Put() function in the Settings class and then call via scoping into the Map::Put() function.
0
 
LVL 6

Author Comment

by:boycy
ID: 11901330
OK, cheers both.
0

Featured Post

U.S. Department of Agriculture and Acronis Access

With the new era of mobile computing, smartphones and tablets, wireless communications and cloud services, the USDA sought to take advantage of a mobilized workforce and the blurring lines between personal and corporate computing resources.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Go is an acronym of golang, is a programming language developed Google in 2007. Go is a new language that is mostly in the C family, with significant input from Pascal/Modula/Oberon family. Hence Go arisen as low-level language with fast compilation…
By default, Carbonite Server Backup manages your encryption key for you using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 128-bit encryption. If you choose to manage your private encryption key, your backups will be encrypted using AES 256-bit encryption.
To efficiently enable the rotation of USB drives for backups, storage pools need to be created. This way no matter which USB drive is installed, the backups will successfully write without any administrative intervention. Multiple USB devices need t…
The viewer will learn how to clear a vector as well as how to detect empty vectors in C++.

895 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

14 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now