A question regarding Mulitple Inheritance

Here is a code snippet,

Code:

---


class A
{
public:
        virtual void draw(){cout<<"A"<<endl;}
};

class B
{
public:
        virtual void draw(){cout<<"B"<<endl;}
};

class A1 : public A
{
public:
        virtual void drawA() = 0;
        virtual void draw(){return drawA();}
};

class B1 : public B
{
public:
        virtual void drawB() = 0;
        virtual void draw(){return drawB();}
};


class D : public A1, public B1
{
public:
        virtual void drawA(){cout<<"drawA"<<endl;}
        virtual void drawB(){cout<<"drawB"<<endl;}
};

int main()
{
        D* pD = new D;

        A* pA = pD;
        pA->draw();
        delete pD;
        return 0;
}

---

Here pA->draw() will call drawA defined in D, why? How'd system know which function should be called, drawA or drawB?

When you assign a pointer of D to an pointer of Class A you are implicitly casting a D object to one of Class A thus you are striping the B Part of the inheritance and some of the functionality of Class D.

Implicit cast:

Code:

---

A* pA = pD;

---

you should always try to minimize casting especially with inheritance because it can lead you to a bunch of trouble

if you use the first object and do this:

Code:

---

D* pD = new D;
pD->draw();

---

the compiler will give you an error and will say that draw is ambiguous, it has no way to decide which function to call
the solution for that is to specify the class with the scope resolution operator
something like this:

Code:

---

pD->A::draw();

---

Thanks for your explaination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrjavoman

When you assign a pointer of D to an pointer of Class A you are implicitly casting a D object to one of Class A thus you are striping the B Part of the inheritance and some of the functionality of Class D.

Implicit cast:

Code:

---

A* pA = pD;

---

you should always try to minimize casting especially with inheritance because it can lead you to a bunch of trouble

if you use the first object and do this:

Code:

---

D* pD = new D;
pD->draw();

---

the compiler will give you an error and will say that draw is ambiguous, it has no way to decide which function to call
the solution for that is to specify the class with the scope resolution operator
something like this:

Code:

---

pD->A::draw();

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrjavoman

When you assign a pointer of D to an pointer of Class A you are implicitly casting a D object to one of Class A thus you are striping the B Part of the inheritance and some of the functionality of Class D.

Implicit cast:

Code:

---

A* pA = pD;

---

you should always try to minimize casting especially with inheritance because it can lead you to a bunch of trouble

---

This is not true. Casting up is routinely done and is essential for any polymorphic code to work.
And this is casting of pointers and not objects. So, no object slicing takes place either.

Quote:

---

if you use the first object and do this:

Code:

---

D* pD = new D;
pD->draw();

---

the compiler will give you an error and will say that draw is ambiguous, it has no way to decide which function to call
the solution for that is to specify the class with the scope resolution operator
something like this:

Code:

---

pD->A::draw();

---

---

Yes, that is true if he is calling Draw using pD, but he is calling it using pA, which is perfectly legal.

Quote:

---

Here pA->draw() will call drawA defined in D, why? How'd system know which function should be called, drawA or drawB?

---

When you cast up, the compiler is going to treat the object D as object A. And since this function is virtual, it will point to the most recent override which is A1::Draw, which in turn calls virtual function DrawA and which points to the most recent override of DrawA which is D::DrawA.
So, that is why A1::Draw gets called first followed by D::DrawA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rohshall

Casting up is routinely done and is essential for any polymorphic code to work.

---

Yeah you are right, casting is routinely done for polymorphic code but I don't necessarily agree with it being essential
the reason I'm saying this is that when you do this:

Code:

---

D* pD = new D;
A* pA = pD;

---

you end up with the D and A pointers pointing to the same object
which as you may know is a behavior that can lead to problems

correct me if I am wrong but I think a better way of writing polymorphic code would be to declare and allocate only one object, thus minimizing the need for casting

Code:

---

A* pA = NULL;
pA = new D;

//or just

A* pA = new D;

---

now you would only have one address to worry about which would minimize risk of having your pointer being used where it shouldn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rohshall

And this is casting of pointers and not objects. So, no object slicing takes place either.

---

I believe object slicing does take place in this example, the second question was

Quote:

---

How'd system know which function should be called, drawA or drawB?

---

and even thought pA is perfectly legal it can't access drawB because Class D inherits from both A1 and B1 and once you cast up to Base class A, like you said, the compiler is going to treat the object D as object A and Class A doesn't know anything about the B hierarchy only Class D does.

I hope I was able to clarify what I meant and thanks for the input :)

How can there be object slicing when no objects are being copied?

Also, the great thing about virtual functions is that class A does not need to know about the inheritance hierachy.

I'm pretty sure you can even dynamically cast between a pointer to A1 and a pointer to B1 !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaccheus

I'm pretty sure you can even dynamically cast between a pointer to A1 and a pointer to B1 !

---

That's a so called crosscast and it's possible using a dynamic_cast.

Note however that this involves an implicit downcast so it should be avoided because it's not typesafe (cannot be verified at compiletime so it can fail at runtime).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuzzle

That's a so called crosscast and it's possible using a dynamic_cast.

---

you guys are right xD my bad, it is posible to access methods from B by using a dynamic_cast

lest see if I get this straight and please correct me if I'm wrong

Rohshall pointed that when casting up you're only casting the pointer, so no slicing of the object is takes place, this is because the pointer still points to the same place in memory and there is no change there right? but from the point of view of the compiler some parts of the class may be hidden because it is now being treated as the class to which the pointer is assigned to and that's when using a dynamic_cast comes in handy although as nuzzle pointed, it should be use with care because it is not typesafe.

You live and you learn...

dynamic_cast is typesafe as it will give an address of zero if the type being cast to is not a base.
A dynamic_cast without a test for zero is usually not safe.

Code:

---

Base *p_base;
...
Derived1 *p_derived1 = dynamic_cast<Derived1 *>(p_base);

if (p_derived1 != 0)
{
    ...
}

Derived2 *p_derived2 = dynamic_cast<Derived2 *>(p_base);

if (p_derived2 != 0)
{
    ...
}

etc...

---

Quote:

---

Rohshall pointed that when casting up you're only casting the pointer, so no slicing of the object is takes place, this is because the pointer still points to the same place in memory and there is no change there right?

---

Mostly right. :-) The pointer may not point to the same place. (Presumably this depends on the compiler.) If you try the follwing with MS VC++ using LarryChen's original example:

Code:

---

    D* pD = new D;

    A* pA = pD;
    B* pB = pD;

    cout << (int) pD << endl;
    cout << (int) pA << endl;
    cout << (int) pB << endl;

---

you'll see the pointer changes between the two upcasts. This is because D contains two v-table pointers, one for the A heirarchy and one for B. The (MS) compiler happened to put A's first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoRanger

you'll see the pointer changes between the two upcasts.

---

This is true, but that change is only very slight and the pointer is just pointing to a different part of the overall object.