views:

5835

answers:

6

I have a base class with a virtual function and I want to override that function in a derived class. Is there some way to make the compiler check if the function I declared in the derived class actually overrides a function in the base class? I would like to add some macro or something that ensures that I didn't accidentally declare a new function, instead of overriding the old one.

Take this example:

class parent {
public:
  virtual void handle_event(int something) const {
    // boring default code
  }
};

class child : public parent {
public:
  virtual void handle_event(int something) {
    // new exciting code
  }
};

int main() {
  parent *p = new child();
  p->handle_event(1);
}

Here parent::handle_event() is called instead of child::handle_event(), because the child's method misses the const declaration and therefore declares a new method. This could also be a typo in the function name or some minor difference in the parameters types. It can also easily happen if the interface of the base class changes and somewhere some derived class wasn't updated to reflect the change.

Is there some way to avoid this problem, can I somehow tell the compiler or some other tool to check this for me? Any helpful compiler flags (preferably for g++)? How do you avoid these problems?

+2  A: 

I would suggest a slight change in your logic. It may or may not work, depending on what you need to accomplish.

handle_event() can still do the "boring default code" but instead of being virtual, at the point where you want it to do the "new exciting code" have the base class call an abstract method (i.e. must-be-overridden) method that will be supplied by your descendant class.

EDIT: And if you later decide that some of your descendant classes do not need to provide "new exciting code" then you can change the abstract to virtual and supply an empty base class implementation of that "inserted" functionality.

JMD
+2  A: 

Your compiler may have a warning that it can generate if a base class function becomes hidden. If it does, enable it. That will catch const clashes and differences in parameter lists. Unfortunately this won't uncover a spelling error.

For example, this is warning C4263 in Microsoft Visual C++.

Mark Ransom
+8  A: 

Something like C#'s override keyword is not part of C++.

In gcc, -Woverloaded-virtual warns against hiding a base class virtual function with a function of the same name but a sufficiently different signature that it doesn't override it. It won't, though, protect you against failing to override a function due to mis-spelling the function name itself.

Charles Bailey
It is if you happen to be using Visual C++
Steve Rowe
Using Visual C++ does not make `override` a keyword in C++; it might mean that you are using something that can compile some invalid C++ source code, though. ;)
Charles Bailey
The fact that override is invalid C++ means the standard is wrong, and not Visual C++
Jon
@Jon: I didn't say that Visual C++ was wrong, I said that it might compile code that isn't C++. Visual C++ supports extensions. `override` is a valid identifier in C++, but even if it wasn't I'm not sure how that would make the standard wrong.
Charles Bailey
@Charles: What I'm trying to say is that standard C++ is lacking. `override` is such a useful and easy to implement concept, that the standard should have it, and people using VC++ without needing to port to other compilers should use it.
Jon
@Jon: OK, now I see what you were driving at. Personally I could take or leave C# style `override` functionality; I've rarely had problems with failed overrides and they've been relatively easy to diagnose and fix. One think I won't agree with is that VC++ users should use it. I'd prefer that C++ look like C++ on all platforms even if one particular project doesn't need to be portable. It's worth noting that C++0x will have `[[base_check]]`, `[[override]]` and `[[hiding]]` attributes so you can opt in to override checking if desired.
Charles Bailey
+4  A: 

As far as I know, can't you just make it abstract?

class parent {
public:
  virtual void handle_event(int something) const = 0 {
    // boring default code
  }
};

I thought I read on www.parashift.com that you can actually implement an abstract method. Which makes sense to me personally, the only thing it does is force subclasses to implement it, no one said anything about it not being allowed to have an implementation itself.

Ray Hidayat
Only now have I realized this works on more than just destructors! Great find.
strager
There are a couple potential drawbacks to this: 1) the other thing that marking one or more methods as abstract does is make the base class non-instantiable, which may be a problem if that's not part of the intended use of the class. 2) the base class might not be yours to modify in the first place.
Michael Burr
+5  A: 

In MSVC, you can use the CLR override keyword even if you're not compiling for CLR.

In g++, there's no direct way of enforcing that in all cases; other people have given good answers on how to catch signature differences using -Woverloaded-virtual. In a future version, someone might add syntax like __attribute__ ((override)) or the equivalent using the C++0x syntax.

Doug
+1  A: 

Make the function abstract, so that derived classes have no other choice than to override it.

@Ray Your code is invalid.

class parent {
public:
  virtual void handle_event(int something) const = 0 {
    // boring default code
  }
};

Abstract functions cannot have bodies defined inline. It must be modified to become

class parent {
public:
  virtual void handle_event(int something) const = 0;
};

void parent::handle_event( int something ) { /* do w/e you want here. */ }
Tanveer Badar