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 #74: Virtual Functions with Default Argument Initializers

This is really the same problem as overloading virtual functions. Like overloading, default argument initializers are basically syntactic sugar, used to change the interface of a function without adding new behavior:

class Thing { 
   // . . .
   virtual void doitNtimes( int numTimes = 12 );
};
class MyThing : public Thing {
   // . . .
   void doitNtimes( int numTimes = 10 );
};

The problems that arise result from a mismatch between the static and dynamic behavior of an object and are often difficult to track down:

Thing *t = new MyThing; 
t->doitNtimes();

The assumption is that it's important to do it, by default, ten times for a MyThing versus twelve times for other types of Thing. Unfortunately, the default argument initializer is applied statically, and the statically determined base class default of 12 is passed to the dynamically bound derived class function.

We could attempt to circumvent this problem by demanding that all derived class designers duplicate precisely a base class function's default initializers when overriding. However, this is a bad approach, for a number of reasons.

First, developers being the way they are, some of them won't follow this advice. (They may have lost confidence in the base class design when they saw the default argument initializer, and decided to strike out on their own.)

Second, such advice renders the derived classes unnecessarily vulnerable to changes in the base class. If the default argument initializer should be modified in the base class, that would require a coordinated change to every derived class as well. Typically, this is not possible.

Third, the meaning of a default argument initializer can vary, according to where it appears in the source code. Syntactically identical initializers may have very different meanings between the base class and derived class contexts:

// In file thing.h . . . 
const int minim = 12;
namespace SCI {
class Thing {
   // . . .
   virtual void doitNtimes( int numTimes = minim ); // uses ::minim
};
}

// In file mything.h . . .
namespace SCI {
const int minim = 10;
class MyThing : public Thing {
   // . . .
   void doitNtimes( int numTimes = minim ); // uses SCI::minim
};
}

It would be hard to blame the derived class designer for picking up the wrong minim, particularly if the declaration of SCI::minim were added after the MyThing class had been written.

The safest and simplest procedure is to avoid default argument initializers in virtual functions. As with overloaded virtual functions, we can achieve our interface goals with a little inline trickery:

class Thing { 
   // . . .
   void doitNtimes( int numTimes = minim )
       { doitNtimesImpl( numTimes ); }
 protected:
   virtual void doitNtimesImpl( int numTimes );
};

Users of the Thing hierarchy will pick up the statically determined default from the base class interface, and derived classes can modify the behavior of the function without concerning themselves with a default initializer.