Re: Private Virtual Methods
On 2012-04-26 14:30, Dan McLeran wrote:
Contrary to what you say, the example fails to "illustrate the power
of this idea and why you should add this technique to your arsenal
[...]." Since Automobile::go() and Automobile::stop() do nothing
more than calling the virtual functions, the example would have
worked equally well without the public non-virtual functions and
with the virtual functions as public:
class Automobile {
public:
// ...
virtual void go() = 0;
virtual void stop() = 0;
};
The point of the post was to demonstrate separating the virtual
interface from the non-virtual public interface. The virtual interface
is meant to be overridden while the public interface is not. Of course
more functionality could have been put into the public interface to
make it more useful but this was not done in the interest of making
the post as short as possible to illustrate the central point.
You missed my point. The question is, why bother to separate the virtual
implementation from the non-virtual interface in the first place? It's
because you can put in the non-virtual interface some operations that
should stay regardless of any future overriding. Without the additional
operations (including possible additions in the future), the separation
is meaningless.
You explicitly stated in the beginning of your post that you meant to
"illustrate the power of this idea and why you should add this technique
to your arsenal [...]." And "in the interest of making the post as short
as possible," you just demonstrated a technique without really showing
its power or why it should be used.
--
Seungbeom Kim
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]