More Books
C++ Gotchas: Avoiding Common Problems in Coding and Design
Main Page
Table of content
Copyright
Addison-Wesley Professional Computing Series
Preface
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1. Basics
Gotcha #1: Excessive Commenting
Gotcha #2: Magic Numbers
Gotcha #3: Global Variables
Gotcha #4: Failure to Distinguish Overloading from Default Initialization
Gotcha #5: Misunderstanding References
Gotcha #6: Misunderstanding Const
Gotcha #7: Ignorance of Base Language Subtleties
Gotcha #8: Failure to Distinguish Access and Visibility
Gotcha #9: Using Bad Language
Gotcha #10: Ignorance of Idiom
Gotcha #11: Unnecessary Cleverness
Gotcha #12: Adolescent Behavior
Chapter 2. Syntax
Gotcha #13: Array/Initializer Confusion
Gotcha #14: Evaluation Order Indecision
Gotcha #15: Precedence Problems
Gotcha #16: 'for' Statement Debacle
Gotcha #17: Maximal Munch Problems
Gotcha #18: Creative Declaration-Specifier Ordering
Gotcha #19: Function/Object Ambiguity
Gotcha #20: Migrating Type-Qualifiers
Gotcha #21: Self-Initialization
Gotcha #22: Static and Extern Types
Gotcha #23: Operator Function Lookup Anomaly
Gotcha #24: Operator '->' Subtleties
Chapter 3. The Preprocessor
Gotcha #25: '#define' Literals
Gotcha #26: '#define' Pseudofunctions
Gotcha #27: Overuse of '#if'
Gotcha #28: Side Effects in Assertions
Chapter 4. Conversions
Gotcha #29: Converting through 'void *'
Gotcha #30: Slicing
Gotcha #31: Misunderstanding Pointer-to-Const Conversion
Gotcha #32: Misunderstanding Pointer-to-Pointer-to-Const Conversion
Gotcha #33: Misunderstanding Pointer-to-Pointer-to-Base Conversion
Gotcha #34: Pointer-to-Multidimensional-Array Problems
Gotcha #35: Unchecked Downcasting
Gotcha #36: Misusing Conversion Operators
Gotcha #37: Unintended Constructor Conversion
Gotcha #38: Casting under Multiple Inheritance
Gotcha #39: Casting Incomplete Types
Gotcha #40: Old-Style Casts
Gotcha #41: Static Casts
Gotcha #42: Temporary Initialization of Formal Arguments
Gotcha #43: Temporary Lifetime
Gotcha #44: References and Temporaries
Gotcha #45: Ambiguity Failure of 'dynamic_cast'
Gotcha #46: Misunderstanding Contravariance
Chapter 5. Initialization
Gotcha #47: Assignment/Initialization Confusion
Gotcha #48: Improperly Scoped Variables
Gotcha #49: Failure to Appreciate C++'s Fixation on Copy Operations
Gotcha #50: Bitwise Copy of Class Objects
Gotcha #51: Confusing Initialization and Assignment in Constructors
Gotcha #52: Inconsistent Ordering of the Member Initialization List
Gotcha #53: Virtual Base Default Initialization
Gotcha #54: Copy Constructor Base Initialization
Gotcha #55: Runtime Static Initialization Order
Gotcha #56: Direct versus Copy Initialization
Gotcha #57: Direct Argument Initialization
Gotcha #58: Ignorance of the Return Value Optimizations
Gotcha #59: Initializing a Static Member in a Constructor
Chapter 6. Memory and Resource Management
Gotcha #60: Failure to Distinguish Scalar and Array Allocation
Gotcha #61: Checking for Allocation Failure
Gotcha #62: Replacing Global New and Delete
Gotcha #63: Confusing Scope and Activation of Member 'new' and 'delete'
Gotcha #64: Throwing String Literals
Gotcha #65: Improper Exception Mechanics
Gotcha #66: Abusing Local Addresses
Gotcha #67: Failure to Employ Resource Acquisition Is Initialization
Gotcha #68: Improper Use of 'auto_ptr'
Chapter 7. Polymorphism
Gotcha #69: Type Codes
Gotcha #70: Nonvirtual Base Class Destructor
Gotcha #71: Hiding Nonvirtual Functions
Gotcha #72: Making Template Methods Too Flexible
Gotcha #73: Overloading Virtual Functions
Gotcha #74: Virtual Functions with Default Argument Initializers
Gotcha #75: Calling Virtual Functions in Constructors and Destructors
Gotcha #76: Virtual Assignment
Gotcha #77: Failure to Distinguish among Overloading, Overriding, and Hiding
Gotcha #78: Failure to Grok Virtual Functions and Overriding
Gotcha #79: Dominance Issues
Chapter 8. Class Design
Gotcha #80: Get/Set Interfaces
Gotcha #81: Const and Reference Data Members
Gotcha #82: Not Understanding the Meaning of Const Member Functions
Gotcha #83: Failure to Distinguish Aggregation and Acquaintance
Gotcha #84: Improper Operator Overloading
Gotcha #85: Precedence and Overloading
Gotcha #86: Friend versus Member Operators
Gotcha #87: Problems with Increment and Decrement
Gotcha #88: Misunderstanding Templated Copy Operations
Chapter 9. Hierarchy Design
Gotcha #89: Arrays of Class Objects
Gotcha #90: Improper Container Substitutability
Gotcha #91: Failure to Understand Protected Access
Gotcha #92: Public Inheritance for Code Reuse
Gotcha #93: Concrete Public Base Classes
Gotcha #94: Failure to Employ Degenerate Hierarchies
Gotcha #95: Overuse of Inheritance
Gotcha #96: Type-Based Control Structures
Gotcha #97: Cosmic Hierarchies
Gotcha #98: Asking Personal Questions of an Object
Gotcha #99: Capability Queries
Bibliography

Gotcha #71: Hiding Nonvirtual Functions

A nonvirtual function specifies an invariant over the hierarchy (or subhierarchy) rooted at the base class. Derived class designers cannot override nonvirtual functions and should not hide them. (See Gotcha #77.) The rationale for this rule is basic and straightforward: to do otherwise would defeat polymorphism.

A polymorphic object has a single implementation (class) but many types. From our knowledge of abstract data types, we know that a type is a set of operations, and these operations are represented in an accessible interface. For example, a Circle is-a Shape and should work in an unsurprising and consistent fashion with code written to either of its interfaces:

class Shape { 
 public:
   virtual ~Shape();
   virtual void draw() const = 0;
   void move( Point );
   // . . .
};
class Circle : public Shape {
 public:
   Circle();
   ~Circle();
   void draw() const;
   void move( Point );
   // . . .
};

The designer of Circle has decided to hide the base class move function (perhaps the base class assumes that the Point is an upper corner, but the version for Circle uses the center). Now it's possible for the same Circle object to behave differently, depending on the interface used to access it:

void doShape( Shape *s, void (Shape::*op)(Point), Point p ) 
   { (s->*op)( p ); }
Circle *c = new Circle;
Point pt( x, y );
c->move( pt );
doShape( c, &Shape::move, pt ); //oops!

Hiding a base class nonvirtual function raises the complexity of using a hierarchy without providing any compensating merit:

class B { 
 public:
   void f();
   void f( int );
};
class D : public B {
 public:
   void f(); // bad idea!
};

B *bp = new D;
bp->f();      // oops! called B::f() for D object
D *dp = new D;
dp->f( 123 ); // error! B::f(int) hidden

Virtual and pure virtual functions are the mechanisms used to specify type-variant implementations. With virtual functions, overriding in the derived class assures that only a single implementation—and therefore a single set of behaviors—will be available for a particular object at runtime. Therefore, the behavior of the object is not dependent on the interface used to access it.

As an aside, note that virtual functions can be called in a nonvirtual manner through use of the scope operator, but this is a property of the use of the interface, not its design. However, in this sense, an overridden base class virtual function is still available to its derived classes:

class Msg { 
 public:
   virtual void send();
   // . . .
};
class XMsg : public Msg {
 public:
   void send();
   // . . .
};
// . . .
XMsg *xmsg = new XMsg;
xmsg->send(); // call XMsg::send
xmsg->Msg::send(); // call hidden/overridden Msg::send

This is a sometimes-necessary hack, not a design. However, the availability of a nonvirtual call to an overridden base class virtual function can rise to the level of a design. Such a call is commonly used to provide a shared, basic implementation in the base class for overriding derived class functions.

A standard implementation of the Decorator pattern is one common illustration of this approach. The Decorator pattern is used to augment, rather than replace, the existing functions of a hierarchy:

gotcha71/msgdecorator.h

class MsgDecorator : public Msg { 
 public:
   void send() = 0;
   // . . .
 private:
   Msg *decorated_;
};
inline void MsgDecorator::send() {
   decorated_->send(); // forward call
}

The class MsgDecorator is an abstract class, since it declares a pure virtual send function. Concrete classes derived from MsgDecorator must override the pure virtual MsgDecorator::send. However, even though it can't be called as a virtual function (except in unusual, nonstandard, and typically erroneous circumstances; see Gotcha #75), MsgDecorator::send may be invoked in a nonvirtual manner through use of the scope operator. The implementation of MsgDecorator::send provides a common, shared implementation that all overriding derived class sends must implement. They do this through a nonvirtual call:

gotcha71/msgdecorator.cpp

void BeepDecorator::send() { 
   MsgDecorator::send(); // do base class functionality
   cout << '\a' << flush; // additional behavior . . .
}

An alternative might be for the MsgDecorator class to declare a protected nonvirtual function containing the common functionality, but the use of a defined pure virtual function more clearly indicates its intended use by derived class functions.