A programming question
-
A good example, but most cases I've come across caring about these kind of problems use delegates instead of inheritance. Delegates come with the additional advantage to keep what would otherwise be the base class entirely out of the API (i. e. the headers). I. e. instead of putting this into your header:
class MyEncapsulatedBaseClass { // ...
public:
void doAwesomeStuff();
};
class MYAPI MyDerivedClass : private MyEncapsulatedBaseClass { // ...
public:
void doMoreAwsomeStuff(); // calls doAwesomeStuff() and more
};you only put this in your header:
class MYAPI MyClass {
class MyEncapsulatedClass* delegate;
public:
void doMoreAwesomeStuff(); // uses delegate to do awesome stuff and then does more
};The advantage of the latter is that you can switch to a different encapsulated class or change the function and data members in that class without affecting the API delivered to your clients. The only advantage of the former I can think of is, that with protected inheritance, that protection is not final, at least not for virtual member functions: another derived class can overide any protected virutal base function with a public one, making it accessible again! (Of course, if you want to retain that option, the question is why don't you use public inheritance to start with ? :wtf: )
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
Yeah,
David O'Neil wrote:
we are overwriting the lives of other species to supposedly improve our own
One of my old coworkers has a wife that was working as a research scientist at the Tulane National Primate Research Center |[^] and she would describe some of her research. They have over 5,000 primates, you have absolutely no idea... what she was telling me was worse than anything you can possibly even imagine. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
All one needs to do is recall images of live monkeys with the tops of their skulls removed and numerous wires implanted. There's a reason that there are groups who are outraged by these practices are sometimes even provoked to mass-releases by attacking the labs. Those who condemn them - maybe if they had a look first, before the lab covered up the less PR-improving experiments. Not just monkeys - much of animal testing is irrelevant. If we relied on its outcome, we'd consider aspiring toxic (cats) and chocolate toxic (dogs) - we'd make up for it with amanita phalloides as a tasty addition to our diet since it doesn't harm rabbits. That's a mushroom more commonly called "The Death Angel".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Disregarding the flagrant violation of protocol, and the total disregard of the red text at the top of the forum, those of you who have programmed in C++, have you ever used
protectedandprivateinheritance? I've never had a use for it, but have been extremely curious about when they are handy. They are not in C# (from what I've read), but maybe I've overlooked something, and they are useful in ways I don't know? Your thoughts and experiences, to expand an undeveloped understanding...One instance where I used private inheritance in pre C++ 11 days was to easily make a class non-copyable:
class fancy_type : private boost::noncopyable
{}; -
All one needs to do is recall images of live monkeys with the tops of their skulls removed and numerous wires implanted. There's a reason that there are groups who are outraged by these practices are sometimes even provoked to mass-releases by attacking the labs. Those who condemn them - maybe if they had a look first, before the lab covered up the less PR-improving experiments. Not just monkeys - much of animal testing is irrelevant. If we relied on its outcome, we'd consider aspiring toxic (cats) and chocolate toxic (dogs) - we'd make up for it with amanita phalloides as a tasty addition to our diet since it doesn't harm rabbits. That's a mushroom more commonly called "The Death Angel".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
All one needs to do is recall images of live monkeys with the tops of their skulls removed and numerous wires implanted.
I don't know how you knew that, but she also told me that the experiments required that the primates were conscious to get accurate data. I don't know how she could sleep at night after doing something like that. It's disgusting. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
-
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
All one needs to do is recall images of live monkeys with the tops of their skulls removed and numerous wires implanted.
I don't know how you knew that, but she also told me that the experiments required that the primates were conscious to get accurate data. I don't know how she could sleep at night after doing something like that. It's disgusting. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
Randor wrote:
I don't know how you knew that,
Pictures of that have been available for years (often showing up in donation requests from animal rights groups). Animals deliberately crippled, typically spinal cord damage, for experiments. Vivisection is common. Personally, I won't even wear leather as it's value-added to the slaughter-industry (and rather repulsive if you think about what it is).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Yeah,
David O'Neil wrote:
we are overwriting the lives of other species to supposedly improve our own
One of my old coworkers has a wife that was working as a research scientist at the Tulane National Primate Research Center |[^] and she would describe some of her research. They have over 5,000 primates, you have absolutely no idea... what she was telling me was worse than anything you can possibly even imagine. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
A more positive story about wildlife: Eagle's Nest Township, Minnesota had/(has?) a different relationship with bears. If you don't want to listen to a program, Salon did an article on him as well.
-
Disregarding the flagrant violation of protocol, and the total disregard of the red text at the top of the forum, those of you who have programmed in C++, have you ever used
protectedandprivateinheritance? I've never had a use for it, but have been extremely curious about when they are handy. They are not in C# (from what I've read), but maybe I've overlooked something, and they are useful in ways I don't know? Your thoughts and experiences, to expand an undeveloped understanding...At the end of the day, it’s a way to implement your public interface to the world without your clients being exposed to the details. You have many options to implement that interface; code directly in the class, delegating to others (composition) or inheriting it. Imagine parallel universes, there is the public one that clients exist in and another that the non-public stuff lives in. Both (potentially) have a need for inheritance either to represent a natural taxonomy (CheckingAccount isa Account, etc) or for reuse (Account inherits Persistent, Equatable). I say “potentially” because out of all the ways to implement your public interface, inheritance is by far the worst in my opinion - it’s the road to spaghetti code ;).
-
Disregarding the flagrant violation of protocol, and the total disregard of the red text at the top of the forum, those of you who have programmed in C++, have you ever used
protectedandprivateinheritance? I've never had a use for it, but have been extremely curious about when they are handy. They are not in C# (from what I've read), but maybe I've overlooked something, and they are useful in ways I don't know? Your thoughts and experiences, to expand an undeveloped understanding... -
Disregarding the flagrant violation of protocol, and the total disregard of the red text at the top of the forum, those of you who have programmed in C++, have you ever used
protectedandprivateinheritance? I've never had a use for it, but have been extremely curious about when they are handy. They are not in C# (from what I've read), but maybe I've overlooked something, and they are useful in ways I don't know? Your thoughts and experiences, to expand an undeveloped understanding...The only time I've used it is when deriving from a class to make use of its functionality, but not wanting to make all of the public base class members accessible. For example, making a fixed vector class that you can iterate over: ```c++ #include #include template struct fixed_vector : private std::vector { using std::vector::vector; using std::vector::begin; using std::vector::end; }; int main() { auto f = fixed_vector{1,2, 3,4 ,5}; for(const auto i : f) { std::cout << i << std::endl; } f.push_back(10); // Causes compiler error } ```
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
-
Disregarding the flagrant violation of protocol, and the total disregard of the red text at the top of the forum, those of you who have programmed in C++, have you ever used
protectedandprivateinheritance? I've never had a use for it, but have been extremely curious about when they are handy. They are not in C# (from what I've read), but maybe I've overlooked something, and they are useful in ways I don't know? Your thoughts and experiences, to expand an undeveloped understanding...David O'Neil wrote:
have you ever used
protectedandprivateinheritance?All the time. Public is for the public parts of the interface to the class. The others are for the internal implementation details -- the parts we want to be free to rewrite and refactor without consequence. In my experience, a bigger public interface to a class means tighter coupling over time since other developers don't have to think very carefully about how their usage tightens the coupling, so they don't and just go ahead and use it.
5G -- more lies faster.
-
David O'Neil wrote:
have you ever used
protectedandprivateinheritance?All the time. Public is for the public parts of the interface to the class. The others are for the internal implementation details -- the parts we want to be free to rewrite and refactor without consequence. In my experience, a bigger public interface to a class means tighter coupling over time since other developers don't have to think very carefully about how their usage tightens the coupling, so they don't and just go ahead and use it.
5G -- more lies faster.
That is a great response, that makes me see things in a new light! Thanks! It is especially helpful breaking free from the 'aggregation/inheritance' argument, that never really made any sense to me since private inheritance is NOT aggregation!
-
Disregarding the flagrant violation of protocol, and the total disregard of the red text at the top of the forum, those of you who have programmed in C++, have you ever used
protectedandprivateinheritance? I've never had a use for it, but have been extremely curious about when they are handy. They are not in C# (from what I've read), but maybe I've overlooked something, and they are useful in ways I don't know? Your thoughts and experiences, to expand an undeveloped understanding...Generally speaking, they are part of the encapsulation of function of your class - gating the interface is what I call it. With that said, I live in the embedded world where so little code re-use occurs (other than cut/paste), OOD is routinely ignored.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759