Is Derivation from std::string Class a Misguided Practice?
In Effective C , it is advised against deriving from the std::string class primarily because it lacks a virtual destructor. This disposition has prompted some confusion regarding the specific requirements for a class to be suitable as a base class.
Contrary to the assumption that a class must be eligible for inheritance to serve as a non-polymorphic base class, C offers alternative mechanisms for code reuse. For instance, private inheritance can facilitate mixins or aspect-oriented programming, while public inheritance is exclusively designated for polymorphic scenarios.
The prevalent reason for discouraging derivation from std::string lies in the distinction between value types and reference types in C . Unlike in Java and C#, C classes are value types, meaning that value-by-value copies are performed during inheritance operations. Consequently, the slicing problem arises when the derived class has a different memory footprint from the base class, resulting in unexpected behavior and potential inconsistencies.
To alleviate this issue, non-member and non-friend functions should be prioritized for extending functionality. If inheritance is considered necessary, composition or template metaprogramming should be employed instead to avoid the pitfalls associated with slicing.
In summation, deriving from std::string is not recommended due to its lack of a virtual destructor and the inherent complexities associated with value-type inheritance in C .
Prevention of Non-Polymorphic Usage
If a base class is solely intended for code reuse and not for polymorphic purposes, there is no straightforward mechanism to prevent clients from instantiating derived classes directly through pointers or references. However, leveraging static_assert or type traits techniques can provide runtime checks to detect non-conforming usage.
The above is the detailed content of Should You Derive from `std::string`?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!

Hot AI Tools

Undress AI Tool
Undress images for free

Undresser.AI Undress
AI-powered app for creating realistic nude photos

AI Clothes Remover
Online AI tool for removing clothes from photos.

Clothoff.io
AI clothes remover

Video Face Swap
Swap faces in any video effortlessly with our completely free AI face swap tool!

Hot Article

Hot Tools

Notepad++7.3.1
Easy-to-use and free code editor

SublimeText3 Chinese version
Chinese version, very easy to use

Zend Studio 13.0.1
Powerful PHP integrated development environment

Dreamweaver CS6
Visual web development tools

SublimeText3 Mac version
God-level code editing software (SublimeText3)

Hot Topics

Yes, function overloading is a polymorphic form in C, specifically compile-time polymorphism. 1. Function overload allows multiple functions with the same name but different parameter lists. 2. The compiler decides which function to call at compile time based on the provided parameters. 3. Unlike runtime polymorphism, function overloading has no extra overhead at runtime, and is simple to implement but less flexible.

C has two main polymorphic types: compile-time polymorphism and run-time polymorphism. 1. Compilation-time polymorphism is implemented through function overloading and templates, providing high efficiency but may lead to code bloating. 2. Runtime polymorphism is implemented through virtual functions and inheritance, providing flexibility but performance overhead.

Yes, polymorphisms in C are very useful. 1) It provides flexibility to allow easy addition of new types; 2) promotes code reuse and reduces duplication; 3) simplifies maintenance, making the code easier to expand and adapt to changes. Despite performance and memory management challenges, its advantages are particularly significant in complex systems.

C destructorscanleadtoseveralcommonerrors.Toavoidthem:1)Preventdoubledeletionbysettingpointerstonullptrorusingsmartpointers.2)Handleexceptionsindestructorsbycatchingandloggingthem.3)Usevirtualdestructorsinbaseclassesforproperpolymorphicdestruction.4

Polymorphisms in C are divided into runtime polymorphisms and compile-time polymorphisms. 1. Runtime polymorphism is implemented through virtual functions, allowing the correct method to be called dynamically at runtime. 2. Compilation-time polymorphism is implemented through function overloading and templates, providing higher performance and flexibility.

People who study Python transfer to C The most direct confusion is: Why can't you write like Python? Because C, although the syntax is more complex, provides underlying control capabilities and performance advantages. 1. In terms of syntax structure, C uses curly braces {} instead of indentation to organize code blocks, and variable types must be explicitly declared; 2. In terms of type system and memory management, C does not have an automatic garbage collection mechanism, and needs to manually manage memory and pay attention to releasing resources. RAII technology can assist resource management; 3. In functions and class definitions, C needs to explicitly access modifiers, constructors and destructors, and supports advanced functions such as operator overloading; 4. In terms of standard libraries, STL provides powerful containers and algorithms, but needs to adapt to generic programming ideas; 5

C polymorphismincludescompile-time,runtime,andtemplatepolymorphism.1)Compile-timepolymorphismusesfunctionandoperatoroverloadingforefficiency.2)Runtimepolymorphismemploysvirtualfunctionsforflexibility.3)Templatepolymorphismenablesgenericprogrammingfo

C polymorphismisuniqueduetoitscombinationofcompile-timeandruntimepolymorphism,allowingforbothefficiencyandflexibility.Toharnessitspowerstylishly:1)Usesmartpointerslikestd::unique_ptrformemorymanagement,2)Ensurebaseclasseshavevirtualdestructors,3)Emp
