class A //parent {
public:
virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};
class B : public A //child {
public:
void DoSomething(string s) override;
}
Where the child member function overrides and changes the parents member function.
I need to pass an array of key states to the Controller class' Update() function but don't want to send it to every class derived from Object (like Controller).
Is this possible or do I have to overload the original Update() member function (but I would need to define the method in Object then (i.e remove the pure virtual function (=0)))
The compiler creates virtual table for the base class and also for the derived class whether we override it or not.
That means each class has separate virtual table. when we get the size of the each class with out any data members... the size of base is -- 4 bytes(64 bit) and the size of derived is -- 1
The size of base class 4 is correct since it creates the virtual pointer internally and its size is member data + virtual pointer, but it in this case I have included any data members so it has given 4 byts.
But why in case of derived is 1 byte, since it the derived class has overridden the virtual function from base, this will also contains the virtual pointer which will be pointing to derived class Vtable, it the size of the class suppose to be 4 instead of 1 byte.
I've got the following code with output. I can't figure out myself why it's what printed out there. I believe, it has something to deal with overloading/overriding/virtual functions implementations in C++:
class Base{ public: virtual void f(int); virtual void f(double); }
[Code].....
Thus here're my conclusions: 1) in line d.f(1.0); for some reason compiler preferred casting double->int of the argument and then call to 'Derived::f(int)'.
2)in line pb->f(1.0); for some reason compiler preferred call to 'Base::f(double);'. 'Base' is static type of pb, but the dynamic type is 'Derived'.
I believe the answer has to deal with the fact whether virtual table contains in addition to functions' names also the types of arguments they accept. AFAIK, vTable doesn't include such info.
Below is simplified code consists of two classes, namely Parent and Child.
Child is inherited from Parent.
All member functions of class Parent are declared virtual, and they have been overridden in the class Child.
Code 1:
#include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> using namespace std; #define QUANTITY 5 class Parent {
[Code] ....
The output of the code:
Child::showID() -- ID is 1804289383 Child::showID() -- ID is 846930886 Child::showID() -- ID is 1681692777 Child::showID() -- ID is 1714636915 Child::showID() -- ID is 1957747793
Parent::operator=() invoked.
Child::showID() -- ID is 1804289383 Child::showID() -- ID is 846930886 Child::showID() -- ID is 1714636915 Child::showID() -- ID is 1714636915 Child::showID() -- ID is 1957747793
Question:
Why is Parent::operator= invoked instead of Child::operator= ..?
Isn't it already declared virtual and hence would be overridden..?
I need to invoke Child::operator= instead. How to achieve this?
I was reading about the CRTP, and I can't for the life of me understand it's advantages over virtual functions.
Unless you're coding embedded systems, and can't afford the few extra bytes for the vptr, or coding something requiring high-performance, where every nanosecond counts, I just don't see why the CRTP is so attractive. It just adds more text and forces every user class that wants to use the CRTP'd hierarchy to become a template class.
I tried implementing my Functor hierarchy with the CRTP instead of virtual functions...All it did was clutter my files with angle brackets and made the whole thing look very ugly.
I try the functions pointers too, but without success. I understand the objects are the way for work with class's. until here fine. But why i can't change the virtual functions from an object? is there anyway for do it? Ican't do, outside of classfunctions, these code:
#include <iostream> using namespace std; class test { public: virtual void created(){};
I recall when I first started playing with C++ I was told that you should never use virtual functions unless you absolutely cannot think of a better way to do whatever you are attempting. This is something I have tried to stick to over the years - and indeed is probably why I have never used inheritance or polymorphism much in my own programmes.
However, I notice through a great deal of the code examples offered to questions here and even over on StackOverflow that commentators show no hesitation to recommend code that involves virtual functions. More so, I have even seen several instances here where - what I was taught as, but they may well have a different official name - 'pure virtual functions' (those with definitions inside a class of something like virtual int function_name(void)=0) are demonstrated and I was very clearly taught to avoid those like the plague.
I was wondering therefore has the official thinking changed since the middle nineties on when - and even whether - to use virtual functions in your programmes?
when I should use pure virtual functions.On the one hand, "TOY" for example should be an abstract class since theres no such thing as "TOY" , there are "toy cars", "toy fighters" etc , but on the other hand I need to force it somehow to be abstract since theres no really a function that any toy should have and implement on his own way (except PRINT maybe).
when I should REALLY use pure virtual functions? And if I want to avoid people from creating TOY objects (for example), the only way is PURE virtual functions. right?
So I have 2 seperate base classes, (note that I removed the variables and functions that do not relate to the topic) Object.h
class Object{ public: Object(); ~Object();
[Code].....
The error I get is saying I am calling a function declared with one calling convention with a function pointer declared with a different calling convention and this makes perfect sense because for some reason, the function pointer is pointed at the virtual function Object::update but I can't figure out why and how to make it point at the virtual function Drawable::getImage.
Also, the virtual update function is called in a different place just before this and works correctly.
I'm working with inheritance and pure virtual functions, and I want to overload an output stream operator. However, every time I run the program I get this: 0x7fff00ee98c0.
I'll include a base class and a derived class so you can see what I'm talking about.
Base:
#include <iostream> using namespace std; #ifndef _Insurance_h_ #define _Insurance_h_
[Code]....
The application is something like this (I'm assuming the user has already inputted the name, salesperson, make, model, etc):
I'm writing a program that calculate the carbon footprint for car, building, and bicycle. i have three classes building, car, bicycle. class called carbonfootprint have the pure virtual and should have the formula, but i didn't find it. having a little bit hard understanding some requests. like,
• Write an abstract class CarbonFootprint with only a pure virtual getCarbonFootprint method. Have each of your classes inherit from that abstract class and implement the getCarbonFootprint method to calculate an appropriate carbon footprint for that class.
• The main() function in the given program creates objects of each of the three classes, places pointers to those objects in a vector of CarbonFootprint pointers. You need to iterate through the vector, polymorphically invoking each object’s getCarbonFootprint method.
// Test program for CarbonFootprint and implementing classes. #include <iostream> #include <vector> using namespace std; int main() { vector< CarbonFootprint* > list; // add elements to list
I'm experimenting with a custom memory-pool for my application, and I initially planned to override the global new and delete operators to allocate memory in this pool. But since I'm using QT, this will apply to all the QT-related stuff as well. Should I instead just override the new and delete operators per class?
I'm looking at writing my own plug-in app, but I know that deleting class instances that were created in a plug-in module can result in the dreaded "undefined behaviour" because of the different memory spaces. Many examples of plug-ins use create_class and destroy_class functions to resolve this problem, but I wondered about overriding / overloading the class's new and delete operators. This would be used for all third-party library class derivations (e.g. derived GUI classes) and all home-grown classes.
The operators would only be declared in the class declaration:
class PluginBase { public: void *operator new(std::size_t n); void operator delete(void *p); // Other plugin bits
While the actual implementation would be defined in the plug-in's implementation file:
This would need to be implemented in every transferable plug-in class (possibly by a crafty IMPLEMENT_PLUGIN(classname) macro or some other mechanism), but before I commit this to my code I was hoping for feedback. Does this sound like a good idea? The GUI classes in particular are handled by a third-party library, so it's some memory-space safe way of deleting them by the GUI library (in the app) that I'm looking for.
I have an assignment which includes overriding the prefix and postfix operators, and my teacher has provided what the output from the program should be. I've written the code and it's nearly perfect, except for one tiny error I can't seem to get right.
This is (most of) the code from the header--I left out a few of the parts that aren't relevant to my question:
Code: using namespace std; #include<string> #include<iostream> class NumDays { private: int hours;
[Code] ....
The two problem lines are supposed to be outputting 12 and 1.5, respectively, but are instead showing 13 and 1.625. I know that hours is being changed to 12 at the end of the overriden prefix operation in the line above them, so I don't understand why it returns to 13 again. What I need to change?
I create two memory manager called CMemManager1 and CMemMangaer2, using different algorithms to allocate buffer. Now I want to control which memory manager to be used, when calling new.
I try to add a parameter bUseWhichMemManager to the constructor, but in overrided new function, there are no way to access the parameter. Is there a way to pass more parameters to new operator, such as:
I have subclassed CFileDialog. I need to select both file and folder on certain case only. Suppose I have a folder selected and it is containing desired file type. Then in such situation, On clicking open button will not open the selected folder. But just close the CFileDialog with IDOK.
For doing this I need to provide my own implementation for Open button handler. I am not getting how I can do this.
I have a class A, from which three classes Aa Ab and Ac are inherited. In class A I have defined some functions by virtual foo()=0, which I implemented in each subclass. Each class is written in a separated .h and .cpp file.
However, now I think it is possible to overload the operator+ INSIDE each class (including pure virtual in class A), such that something like
int main() { A *value = new Aa(); A value2 = *value + 1.0f; }
This should be realizable, because the operator+ is part of the Aa class. Now, I would like to do something like
int main() { A *value = new Aa(); A value2 = 1.0f + *value; }
This time, I expect I cannot overwrite the operator+, because it is not part of either class A or class Aa.
So i am having troubles with operator overloading in inherited class. Basically, it doesnt work. Consider this:
Code:
class A { public: A() { x=0; z= new int;
[Code] ....
Some how the copy constructor of a is improperly executed - the pointer is copied over, not re-created. As a result, the destructors crashes due to double-free.
*/ B bb = b; //doesnt work B bbb(b); //doesnt work B bbbb(b, 0); //works }
Above code shows the problem well. The "official" copy-constructor wont work - it copies over the pointer directly, and doesnt create a new one as it should. However, if i provide my own pseudo-copy-constructor that works. But ofcourse it's just a cheap work around - and wont actually work in real code (STL).
