On 4 mar, 19:37, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:32 am, Michael Doubez <michael.dou...@free.fr> wrote:
On 3 mar, 21:10, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
* Leigh Johnston:
IMHO "don't derive from concrete class" is a poor wording. I prefer
"inherit an interface, not an implementation" (IIRC adapted from
IMNSHO inheriting from a concrete class is perfectly valid
when you only want to add to the interface of an object -
after all, it is part of the 3 fundamental OOP rules.
Before arguing against the rule, it would be interesting to see
who is proposing it, and why.
I cannot remember who stated them, it dates to my academics:
"A computer language is object-oriented if they support the three
fundamental features: polymorphism, inheritance, and encapsulation."
Inheritance in the OOP sense, i.e. (arguably) to reuse a class
implementation in order to *add* to its interface (not modifying its
internals, that's polymorphism).
To date, the only thing I've seen
recently is a mention that Herb Sutter cites it. Until I've
seen why it's being recommended, I can't really argue one way or
the other. (I haven't actuall seen anyone propose it since
about 1995, but I haven't seen everything. Still, I would like
to know what is wrong with something like:
virtual void customizationFunction();
// with a default implemenation
A class using the template method pattern for customization,
but which provides defaults for all of the customization, seems
like a classical example of a case where a concrete class is
actuall designed to be used as a base class (with public
IMHO, part of the misunderstanding stems from the fact that in C++,
polymorphism is /usually/ performed through inheritance.
As a consequence, in C++ a class can inherit from another for both
reasons: reusing code (of the base classe) and create a polymorphic
Whether it is a good thing or not is IMO what is (should be) debated
here; should a virtual function from a base class be implemented ?
Separating the concern, with your example we could write:
virtual void customizationFunction()=0;
class TemplateBase: TemplateBaseIsPolymorphic
virtual void customizationFunction()
// default implementation
From the C++ language point of view, this doesn't add a lot and
personally I prefer the original example.
Deriving from classes which weren't designed to be bases (such
as the standard containers) is generally a bad idea.
That's because, IMO the standard containers usually have a complete
interface and there is no need to.
key to whether you should derive from a class or not isn't
whether it is concrete or not; it's whether it was designed to
be used as a base class or not.
My point exactly.