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?
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)))
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 am interested in exploring covariant return types, but my attempt to implement them via CRTP is not working. How to accomplish what I am attempting.
Let's take a virtual clone() method as an example.
Code: class Base { virtual Base* clone() const = 0; }; template <typename Derived> class Base_CRTP: public Base {
[Code] .....
This setup is giving me :
file.cpp: error C2555: 'Base_CRTP<Derived>::clone': overriding virtual function return type differs and is not covariant from 'Base::clone'
It makes sense that even though Derived actually *is* a direct descendant of Base, this might not be recognized because Derived is a template argument. But is there any easy way around this that doesn't require using a different function name or duplicating the clone() logic in every derived class?
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'm a little confused by my programming assignment this week. I've been working at it Wednesday and I've made progress but I'm still confused as to how I'm supposed to do this. The class I made is called Stack, and it's derived from a template class called StackADT. We also utilize a class called unorderedLinkedList, which is derived from a class called linkedList.
We're supposed to implement all of the virtual functions from stackADT in the Stack class. The Stack data is stored in a an unorderedLinkedList, so what I'm confused by is how to implement a few of the Stack functions because there are no functions in unorderedLinkedList which we could call to manipulate the data.
As you can see from my attached code, I'm really confused by how I'm supposed to implement the pop() and top() functions, and I also think my initializeList() function is wrong. We don't have any similar functions in unorderedLinkedList to call, so I'm at a loss of how i'd access my unorderedLinkedList. My initial thought was to call the similar functions in the class that unorderedLinkedList was derived from, linkedList, but I'm unsure of this is what we're supposed to do, or if theres actually a way to access my unorderedLinkedList without having to use the functions from the base class.
NOTE: We're not allowed to modify stackADT, unorderedLinkedList, and linkedList.
Stack.h
#include "stackADT.h" #include "unorderedLinkedList.h" template<class Type> class Stack: public stackADT<Type>{ template <class T> struct nodeType { T info; nodeType<T> *link;
But now I'm trying to use this to point to a function inside a class so instead of do11, i want to be able to point to Basic.Do11. Somehow this doesnt work and I keep on getting this message:
error: argument of type 'void (Basic::)()' does not match 'void (*)()'
I have questions about multiple inheritance and virtual methods. I have a class called solid. All objects of this class have hitboxes and can collide with others. I have the following methods:
void testCollision(something begin, something end); /* This method takes a container's begin and end iterators to test if the object collides with any other object of the list of all the solids currently in the game area. Each time there is a collision, it calls collide(other) and other.collide(*this) */
virtual bool collide(solid& other); /* This method always returns false and does nothing */
This class will be inherited by another class which will have overloads for a few specific collisions. For example:
class player : public solid{ public: bool collide(projectile& other); bool collide(enemy& other); bool collide(wall& other); };
My question is quite simple actually. If I have a loop which calls testCollision() with all elements in the list of all solids (a list of pointers to solids to be exact) and there is a collision between the player and a projectile, will testCollision call player::colide(projectile& other) or will it call solid::collide(solid& other). And in any case, did I understand how to use the virtual keyword? If I'm right, it should call the player::colide method if it's there for the specific type, else it will call the solid::colide which only returns 0, ignoring collision.
class Base { public: virtual ~Base() { cout << "Calling ~Base()" << endl;
[Code]...
Now this program produces the following result:
Calling ~Derived() Calling ~Base()
i was reading online and got stuck here. i am unable to understand why 'calling ~Base()' is been printed here? when we reached delete pbase; in int main() it goes to Base class first and finds that its destructor is virtual so it goes to Derive class and finds another destructor and executes it but why does it prints ~Base() in any case?
#include <iostream> using namespace std; struct A { virtual void f() { cout<<"A "; } };
[code]...
I would expect that both examples 2 & 3 will give me the same result.I tried to figure it out but I could not. Both are references of a base class type, that get a derived object.
Q1 : why is the difference between them ?
As I see it, its kind of a mix between pointer - which in case of virtual method that was override in derived class - would give me the derived method (e.g. "B") and between regular object - which in case of virtual method that was override - would give me the specific method (Still "B"). So, example 2 "use" it as a regular object and example 3, "use" it as pointer.
Q2 : How should I refer to it ? I am using VS2008.
my question is why we can't directly call the member function of the desired class instead of using virtual function.
***********same program using virtual keyword*******************
class Base { private: {
[Code].....
Why we generally prefer the 2nd one i.e with virtual keyword. why we can't directly call the member function of the desired class instead of using virtual function...make me understand this point..
Code: class A { public: virtual void foo(){} }; class B : public A {
[Code] ....
Obviously when you call pA->foo, it will call foo defined in B. But foo defined in B is private. It is not supposed to be called outside the class B. So it looks like virtual breaks encapsulation.
I'm just playing around with C++ and I'm trying to make a sort of virtual pet game. I know its not the best looking code but I'm trying. But as of right now I'm trying to be able to animate the game a little . For example , if a user decides to "pet" their "pet" I want the pets mouth to open from '_' to ^o^ like this:
() () ('_') -> () () (^o^) and switch back and forth.
Here's my code:
#include <iostream> #include <cstring> using namespace std; void Greeting()
I have this header file called Shape.h containing these function declarations. and a Shape.cpp which contains the body of the function. I am not showing it since it is not needed.
//This is from Shapes.h header file #ifndef SHAPES_H #define SHAPES_H #include <iostream>
[Code]....
I have this unfinished Main.cpp because the third line "JuanSanchez::Circle *pCar = new Circle; " is giving me a compiler error "error C2061: syntax error : identifier 'Circle' "
#include "Shapes.h" int main() { const int arrayIndex = 4; JuanSanchez::Shape *myShape[arrayIndex]; JuanSanchez::Circle *pCar = new Circle; }
How can I access the virtual base class? This is a practice exercise from c++ primer plus 6.
The problem is that the name becomes No Name instead of the name specified when creating the gunslinger, I don't know how I can call the virtual base class explicitly
Output,
#ifndef PERSON_H_ #define PERSON_H_ #include <string> #include <iostream> #include <cstdlib> using std::string; class person
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.
I have an AbstractAgent base class that manages a background thread. The actual work done in the background thread is accomplished through a pure virtual function call.
Here's the problem: because the base class is initialized prior to the derived class, there is a race condition in which the pure virtual call might occur before the derived class is initialized. Likewise, on teardown the derived class might deconstruct before the base class destructor has a chance to stop the thread.
I'd like to know if there are any well-known patterns for dealing with this problem. All I can think of is providing start() and stop() methods which can be called from the most-derived class's constructor/destructor, but that strikes me as inelegant.
