Comments on: How to Assert on Object Slicing? http://weseetips.com/2009/03/11/how-to-assert-on-object-slicing/ Gold mine of Visual C++ tricks! Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:10:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: GLaz http://weseetips.com/2009/03/11/how-to-assert-on-object-slicing/comment-page-1/#comment-275 GLaz Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:58:50 +0000 http://weseetips.com/?p=918#comment-275 Without this constructor code won't even compile. Why do we need any assertions? Without this constructor code won’t even compile. Why do we need any assertions?

]]> By: pizer http://weseetips.com/2009/03/11/how-to-assert-on-object-slicing/comment-page-1/#comment-274 pizer Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:29:31 +0000 http://weseetips.com/?p=918#comment-274 I forgot to mention. If you deal with dynamically allocated polymorphic objects: Make the base class destructor either virtual or protected. I forgot to mention. If you deal with dynamically allocated polymorphic objects: Make the base class destructor either virtual or protected.

]]> By: pizer http://weseetips.com/2009/03/11/how-to-assert-on-object-slicing/comment-page-1/#comment-273 pizer Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:27:50 +0000 http://weseetips.com/?p=918#comment-273 public inheritence is kind of overused. It really only models the "is-a" relationship well and nothing else. public inheritence is what you use for runtime polymorphism. If runtime polymorphism is what you want, consider using smart pointers to manage the objects. Also, make the "interface" base class an <em>abstract</em> class -- preferably without data members. If the base class is abstract you won't be able to define variables of type base -- only pointers or references. This will save you from slicing problems. public inheritence is kind of overused. It really only models the “is-a” relationship well and nothing else. public inheritence is what you use for runtime polymorphism. If runtime polymorphism is what you want, consider using smart pointers to manage the objects. Also, make the “interface” base class an abstract class — preferably without data members. If the base class is abstract you won’t be able to define variables of type base — only pointers or references. This will save you from slicing problems.

]]> By: Jijo.Raj http://weseetips.com/2009/03/11/how-to-assert-on-object-slicing/comment-page-1/#comment-272 Jijo.Raj Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:34:25 +0000 http://weseetips.com/?p=918#comment-272 Hi Navaneeth, Yes. its true if the base class is part of framework, where all derived classes are not known. But, the idea of private constructor is great! I'll update it in the article. Thanks a lot for sharing it and Keep watching! Regards, Jijo. Hi Navaneeth,

Yes. its true if the base class is part of framework, where all derived classes are not known. But, the idea of private constructor is great! I’ll update it in the article. Thanks a lot for sharing it and Keep watching!

Regards,
Jijo.

]]> By: Navaneeth http://weseetips.com/2009/03/11/how-to-assert-on-object-slicing/comment-page-1/#comment-271 Navaneeth Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:56:04 +0000 http://weseetips.com/?p=918#comment-271 Hi there, This is interesting. But will work only if "Derived" is known at the time of writing "Base". Usually you will not know who will derive when you write a base class. How about making the base class copy protected (private copy constructor)? Hi there,

This is interesting. But will work only if “Derived” is known at the time of writing “Base”. Usually you will not know who will derive when you write a base class.

How about making the base class copy protected (private copy constructor)?

]]>