Don't hesitate to send in feedback: send an e-mail if you like the C++ Annotations; if you think that important material was omitted; if you find errors or typos in the text or the code examples; or if you just feel like e-mailing. Send your e-mail to Frank B. Brokken.Please state the document version you're referring to, as found in the title (in this document: 8.3.1) and please state chapter and paragraph name or number you're referring to.
All received mail is processed conscientiously, and received suggestions for improvements will usually have been processed by the time a new version of the Annotations is released. Except for the incidental case I will normally not acknowledge the receipt of suggestions for improvements. Please don't interpret this as me not appreciating your efforts.
Using inheritance classes may be derived from other classes, called base
classes. In the previous chapter we saw that base class pointers may be used
to point to derived class objects. We also saw that when a base class pointer
points to an object of a derived class it is the the type of the pointer
rather than the type of the object it points to what determines which member
functions are visible. So when a Vehicle *vp, points to an Auto object
Auto's speed or brandName members can't be used.
In the previous chapter two fundamental ways classes may be related to each other were discussed: a class may be implemented-in-terms-of another class and it can be stated that a derived class is-a base class. The former relationship is usually implemented using composition, the latter is usually implemented using a special form of inheritance, called polymorphism, the topic of this chapter.
An is-a relationship between classes allows us to apply the
 
Liskov Substitution Principle (
LSP) according to which a derived
class object may be passed to and used by code expecting a pointer or
reference to a base class object. In the C++ Annotations so far the LSP has been
applied many times. Every time an ostringstream, ofstream or fstream
was passed to functions expecting an ostream we've been applying this
principle. In this chapter we'll discover how to design our own classes
accordingly.
LSP is implemented using a technique called 
polymorphism: although a base
class pointer is used it will perform actions defined in the (derived) class
of the object it actually points to. So, a Vehicle *vp might behave like
an Auto * when pointing to an Auto (In one of the StarTrek
movies, Capt.  Kirk was in trouble, as usual. He met an extremely beautiful
lady who, however, later on changed into a hideous troll. Kirk was quite
surprised, but the lady told him: ``Didn't you know I am a polymorph?'').
Polymorphism is implemented using a feature called late binding. It's called that way because the decision which function to call (a base class function or a function of a derived class) cannot be made at compile-time, but is postponed until the program is actually executed: only then it is determined which member function will actually be called.
In C++ late binding is not the default way functions are called. By default static binding (or early binding) is used. With static binding the functions that are called are determined by the compiler, merely using the class types of objects, object pointers or object refences.
Late binding is an inherently different (and slightly slower) process as it is decided at run-time, rather than at compile-time what function will be called. As C++ supports both late- and early-binding C++ programmers are offered an option as to what kind of binding to use. Choices can be optimized to the situations at hand. Many other languages offering object oriented facilities (e.g., Java) only or by default offer late binding. C++ programmers should be keenly aware of this. Expecting early binding and getting late binding may easily produce nasty bugs.
Let's look at a simple example to start appreciating the differences between late and early binding. The example merely illustrates. Explanations of why things are as shown will shortly be provided.
Consider the following little program:
    #include <iostream>
    using namespace std;
    class Base
    {
        protected:
            void hello()
            {
                cout << "base hello\n";
            }
        public:
            void process()
            {
                hello();
            }
    };
    class Derived: public Base
    {
        protected:
            void hello()
            {
                cout << "derived hello\n";
            }
    };
    int main()
    {
        Derived derived;
        derived.process();
    }
    The important characteristic of the above program is the Base::process
function, calling hello. As process is the only member that is defined
in the public interface it is the only member that can be called by code not
belonging to the two classes. The class Derived, derived from Base
clearly inherits Base's interface and so process is also available in
Derived. So the Derived object in main is able to call
process, but not hello.
So far, so good. Nothing new, all this was covered in the previous
chapter.  One may wonder why Derived was defined at all.  It was
presumably defined to create an implementation of hello that's appropriate
for Derived but differing from Base::hello's
implementation. Derived's author's reasoning was as follows: Base's
implementation of hello is not appropriate; a Derived class object can
remedy that by providing an appropriate implementation. Furthermore our author
reasoned:
    
``since the type of an object determines the interface that is used,processmust callDerived::helloashellois called viaprocessfrom aDerivedclass object''.
Unfortunately our author's reasoning is flawed, due to static binding. When
Base::process was compiled static binding caused the compiler to fixate
the hello call to Base::hello().
The author intended to create a Derived class that is-a Base
class. That only partially succeeded: Base's interface was inherited, but
after that Derived has relinquished all control over what happens. Once
we're in process we're only able to see Base's member
implementations. Polymorphism offers a way out, allowing us to redefine (in a
derived class) members of a base class allowing these redefined members to be
used from the base class's interface.
This is the essence of LSP: public inheritance should not be used to reuse the base class members (in derived classes) but to be reused (by the base class, polymorphically using derived class members reimplementing base class members).
Take a second to appreciate the implications of the above little program. The
hello and process members aren't too impressive, but the implications
of the example are. The process member could implement directory travel,
hello could define the action to perform when encountering a
file. Base::hello might simply show the name of a file, but
Derived::hello might delete the file; might only list its name if its
younger than a certain age; might list its name if it contains a certain text;
etc., etc.. Up to now Derived would have to implement process's
actions itself; Up to now code expecting a Base class reference or pointer
could only perform Base's actions. Polymorphism allows us to reimplement
members of base classes and to use those reimplemented members in code
expecting base class references or pointers. Using polymorphism existing code
may be reused by derived classes reimplementing the appropriate members of
their base classes. It's about time to uncover how this magic can be realized.
Polymorphism, which is not
the default in C++, solves the problem and allows the author of the
classes to reach its goal. For the curious reader: prefix void hello() in
the Base class with the keyword virtual and recompile. Running the
modified program produces the intended and expected derived hello. Why
this happens is explained next.
Vehicle * will activate Vehicle's member
functions, even when pointing to an object of a derived class. This is known
as as early or
    
 
 static binding: the function to
call is determined at
 
compile-time. In C++ late
 
 or 
 dynamic binding is realized using
virtual member functions.
A member function becomes a 
virtual member function when its declaration
starts with the keyword 
virtual. It is stressed once again that in
C++, different from several other object oriented languages, this is
not the default situation. By default static binding is used.
Once a function is declared virtual in a base class, it remains virtual in
all derived classes; even when the keyword virtual is not repeated in
derived classes.
In the vehicle classification system (see section 13.1) the two
member functions mass and setMass might be declared
virtual. Concentrating on mass The relevant sections of the class
definitions of the class Vehicle and Truck are shown below. Also, we
show the implementations of the member function mass:
        
    class Vehicle
    {
        public:
            virtual int mass() const;
    };
    class Truck: // inherited from Vehicle through Auto and Land
    {
        // not altered
    };
    int Vehicle::mass() const
    {
        return d_mass;
    }
    int Truck::mass() const
    {
        return Auto::mass() + d_trailer_wt;
    }
    The keyword virtual only appears in the (Vehicle) base
class. There is no need (but there is also no 
penalty) to repeat it in
derived classes. Once a class member has been declared virtual is will be
virtual in all derived classes. A member function may be
declared virtual anywhere in a
    
class hierarchy. The compiler will be perfectly happy if mass is
declared virtual in Auto, rather than in Vehicle. The specific
characteristics of virtual member functions would then only be available for
Auto objects and for objects of classes derived from Auto. For a
Vehicle pointer static binding would remain to be used.  The effect of
late binding is illustrated below:
        
    Vehicle v(1200);            // vehicle with mass 1200
    Truck t(6000, 115,          // truck with cabin mass 6000, speed 115,
          "Scania", 15000);     // make Scania, trailer mass 15000
    Vehicle *vp;                // generic vehicle pointer
    int main()
    {
        vp = &v;                            // see (1) below
        cout << vp->mass() << '\n';
        vp = &t;                            // see (2) below
        cout << vp->mass() << '\n';
        cout << vp->speed() << '\n';     // see (3) below
    }
    Now that mass is defined virtual, late binding will be used:
    Vehicle::mass is called.
    Truck::mass is called.
    speed is no member of Vehicle, and hence not callable via
a Vehicle*.
    virtual. A member's virtual characteristic only influences the type of
binding (early vs. late), not the set of member functions that is visible
to the pointer.
Through virtual members derived classes may redefine the behavior performed by functions called from base class members or from pointers or references to base class objects. This redefinition of base class members by derived classes is called overriding members.
    Vehicle *vp = new Land(1000, 120);
    delete vp;          // object destroyed
    Here delete is applied to a base class pointer. As the base class
defines the available interface delete vp calls ~Vehicle and ~Land
remains out of sight. Assuming that Land allocates memory a
 
memory leak results. Freeing memory is not the only action destructors can
perform. In general they may perform any action that's necessary when an
object ceases to exist. But here none of the actions defined by ~Land will
be performed. Bad news....
In C++ this problem is solved by
 
 virtual destructors.  A
destructor can be declared virtual. When a base class destructor is
declared virtual the destructor of the actual class pointed to by a base class
pointer bp will be called when executing delete bp. Thus, late binding
is realized for destructors even though the destructors of derived classes
have unique names. Example:
        
    class Vehicle
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Vehicle();     // all derived class destructors are
                                    // now virtual as well.
    };
    By declaring a virtual destructor, the above delete operation
(delete vp) will correctly call Land's destructor, rather than
Vehicle's destructor.
Once a destructor is called it will perform as usual, whether or not it
is a virtual destructor. So, ~Land will first execute its own statements
and will then call ~Vehile. Thus, the above delete vp statement will
use late binding to call ~Vehicle and from this point on the object
destruction proceeds as usual.
Destructors should always be defined virtual in classes designed as a
base class from which other classes are going to be derived. Often those
destructors themselves have no tasks to perform. In these cases the virtual
    
 
    destructor is given an empty body. For example, the definition of
Vehicle::~Vehicle() may be as simple as:
        
    Vehicle::~Vehicle()
    {}
    Resist the temptation to define destructors (even empty destructors)
 
 
inline as this will complicate class
maintenance. Section 14.9 discusses the reason behind this
 
rule of thumb.
Vehicle is provided with its own concrete implementations
of its virtual members (mass and setMass).  However, virtual
member functions not necessarily have to be implemented in base classes.
When the implementations of virtual members are omitted from base classes the class imposes requirements upon derived classes. The derived classes are required to provide the `missing implementations'
This approach, in some languages (like C#, Delphi and Java) known as an interface, defines a protocol. Derived classes must obey the protocol by implementing the as yet not implemented members. If a class contains at least one member whose implementation is missing no objects of that class can be defined.
Such incompletely defined classes are always base classes. They enforce a protocol by merely declaring names, return values and arguments of some of their members. These classes are call abstract classes or abstract base classes. Derived classes become non-abtract classes by implementing the as yet not implemented members.
Abstract base classes are the foundation of many design patterns (cf. Gamma et al. (1995)) , allowing the programmer to create highly reusable software. Some of these design patterns are covered by the C++ Annotations (e.g, the Template Method in section 23.3), but for a thorough discussion of design patterns the reader is referred to Gamma et al.'s book.
Members that are merely declared in base classes are called
 
pure virtual functions. A virtual member becomes a pure virtual member
by postfixing 
= 0 to its declaration (i.e., by replacing the semicolon
ending its declaration by `= 0;'). Example:
        
    #include <iosfwd>
    class Base
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Base();
            virtual std::ostream &insertInto(std::ostream &out) const = 0;
    };
    inline std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &out, Base const &base)
    {
        return base.insertInto(out);
    }
    All classes derived from Object must implement the insertInto
member function, or their objects cannot be constructed. This is neat: all
objects derived from Object can now always be inserted into 
ostream
objects.
Could the 
virtual destructor of a base class ever be a pure virtual
function? The answer to this question is no. First of all, there is no need to
enforce the availability of destructors in derived classes as destructors are
provided by default (unless a destructor is declared with the = delete
attribute using the new C++0x standard). Second, if it is a pure virtual
member its implementation does not exist, but derived class destructors will
eventually call their base class destructors. How could they call base class
destructors if their implementations are lacking? More about this in the next
section.
Often, but not necessarily, pure virtual member functions are
const 
 member functions. This allows the
construction of constant derived class objects. In other situations this might
not be necessary (or realistic), and
 
non-constant member functions might be required. The general rule for
const member functions also applies to pure virtual functions: if the
member function alters the object's data members, it cannot be a const
member function.
Abstract base classes frequently don't have
 
 data members.  However, once a base class
declares a pure virtual member it must be declared identically in derived
classes. If the implementation of a pure virtual function in a derived class
alters the derived class object's data, then that function cannot be
declared as a const member. Therefore, the author of an abstract base
class should carefully consider whether a pure virtual member function should
be a const member function or not.
= 0; specification, but
implement it as well. Since the = 0; ends in a semicolon, the pure virtual
member is always at most a declaration in its class, but an implementation may
either be provided outside from its interface (maybe using inline).
Pure virtual member functions may be called from derived class objects or from its class or derived class members by specifying the base class and scope resolution operator together with the member to be called. Example:
#include <iostream>
class Base
{
    public:
        virtual ~Base();
        virtual void pureimp() = 0;
};
Base::~Base()
{}
void Base::pureimp()
{
    std::cout << "Base::pureimp() called\n";
}
class Derived: public Base
{
    public:
        virtual void pureimp();
};
inline void Derived::pureimp()
{
    Base::pureimp();
    std::cout << "Derived::pureimp() called\n";
}
int main()
{
    Derived derived;
    derived.pureimp();
    derived.Base::pureimp();
    Derived *dp = &derived;
    dp->pureimp();
    dp->Base::pureimp();
}
// Output:
//      Base::pureimp() called
//      Derived::pureimp() called
//      Base::pureimp() called
//      Base::pureimp() called
//      Derived::pureimp() called
//      Base::pureimp() called
Implementing a pure virtual member has limited use. One could argue that the pure virtual member function's implementation may be used to perform tasks that can already be performed at the base class level. However, there is no guarantee that the base class virtual member function will actually be called. Therefore a base class specific tasks could as well be offered by a separate member, without blurring the distinction between a member doing some work and a pure virtual member enforcing a protocol.
fstream, one class
offering features of ifstream and ofstream. In chapter
13 we learned that a class may be derived from multiple base
classes. Such a derived class inherits the properties of all its base
classes. Polymorphism can also be used in combination with multiple
inheritance.
Consider what would happen if more than one `path' leads from the derived
class up to its (base) classes. This is illustrated in the next (fictitious)
example where a class Derived is doubly derived from Base:
        
    class Base
    {
        int d_field;
        public:
            void setfield(int val);
            int field() const;
    };
    inline void Base::setfield(int val)
    {
        d_field = val;
    }
    inline int Base::field() const
    {
        return d_field;
    }
    class Derived: public Base, public Base
    {
    };
    Due to the double derivation, Base's functionality now occurs twice in
Derived. This results in 
ambiguity: when the function setfield() is
called for a Derived class object, which function will that be as there
are two of them? The scope resolution operator won't come to the rescue and so
the C++ compiler will not be able to compile the above example and will
(correctly) identify an error.
The above code clearly duplicates its base class in the derivation, which can
of course easily be avoided by not doubly deriving from Base (or by using
composition (!)). But duplication of a base class can also occur through
 
nested inheritance, where an object is derived from, e.g., an Auto and
from an Air (cf. section 13.1). Such a class would be needed
to represent, e.g., a flying car (such as the one in James Bond
vs. the Man with the Golden Gun...). An AirAuto would ultimately contain
two Vehicles, and hence two mass fields, two setMass()
functions and two mass() functions. Is this what we want?
AirAuto introduces 
ambiguity, when
derived from Auto and Air.
    AirAuto is an Auto, hence a Land, and hence a
Vehicle.
    AirAuto is also an Air, and hence a Vehicle.
    Vehicle data is further illustrated in
Figure 12.
    
    The internal organization of an AirAuto is shown in
Figure 13
    

AirAuto object.
    The C++ compiler detects the ambiguity in an AirAuto object,
and will therefore not  compile  statements like:
        
    AirAuto jBond;
    cout << jBond.mass() << '\n';
    Which member function mass to call cannot be determined by the
compiler but the programmer has two possibilities to resolve the ambiguity for
the compiler:
    
    // let's hope that the mass is kept in the Auto
    // part of the object..
    cout << jBond.Auto::mass() << '\n';
    The scope resolution operator and the class name are put right before
the name of the member function.
    mass could be created for
the class AirAuto:
        
    int AirAuto::mass() const
    {
        return Auto::mass();
    }
    AirAuto to take special precautions.
However, there exists a more elegant solution, discussed in the next section.
AirAuto represents
two Vehicles. This not only results in an 
ambiguity about which
function to use to access the mass data, but it also defines two
mass fields in an AirAuto. This is slightly redundant, since we can
assume that an AirAuto has but one mass.
It is, however, possible to define an AirAuto as a class consisting of
but one Vehicle and yet using multiple derivation.  This is realized by
defining the base classes that are multiply mentioned in a derived class's
inheritance tree as a
 
 
virtual base class.
For the class AirAuto this implies a small change when deriving an
AirAuto from Land and Air classes:
        
    class Land: virtual public Vehicle
    {
        // etc
    };
    class Auto: public Land
    {
        // etc
    };
    class Air: virtual public Vehicle
    {
        // etc
    };
    class AirAuto: public Auto, public Air
    {
    };
    Virtual derivation 
 ensures that a Vehicle is
only added once to a derived class. This means that the route along which a
Vehicle is added to an AirAuto is no longer depending on its direct
base classes; we can only state that an AirAuto is a Vehicle.  The
internal organization of an AirAuto after virtual derivation is shown in
Figure 14.
    
AirAuto object when the base
            classes are virtual.
When a class Third inherits from a base class Second which in turn
inherits from a base class First then the First class constructor
called by the Second class constructor is also used when this Second
constructor is used when constructing a Third object. Example:
        
    class First
    {
        public:
            First(int x);
    };
    class Second: public First
    {
        public:
            Second(int x)
            :
                First(x)
            {}
    };
    class Third: public Second
    {
        public:
            Third(int x)
            :
                Second(x)           // calls First(x)
            {}
    };
    The above no longer holds true when Second uses virtual derivation.
When Second uses virtual derivation its base class constructor is
ignored when Second's constructor is called from Third. Instead
Second will by default call First's default constructor. This is
illustrated by the next example:
                
    class First
    {
        public:
            First()
            {
                cout << "First()\n";
            }
            First(int x);
    };
    class Second: public virtual First      // note: virtual
    {
        public:
            Second(int x)
            :
                First(x)
            {}
    };
    class Third: public Second
    {
        public:
            Third(int x)
            :
                Second(x)
            {}
    };
    int main()
    {
        Third third(3);     // displays `First()'
    }
When constructing Third First's default constructor is used by
default. Third's constructor, however, may overrule this default behavior
by explicitly specifying the constructor to use. Since the First object
must be available before Second can be constructed it must be specified
first. To call First(int) when constructing Third(int) the latter
constructor can be defined as follows:
        
    class Third: public Second
    {
        public:
            Third(int x)
            :
                First(x),           // now First(int) is called.
                Second(x)
            {}
    };
    This behavior may seem puzzling when simple linear inheritance is used but
it makes sense when multiple inheritance is used with base classes using
virtual inheritance. Consider AirAuto: when Air and Auto both
virtually inherit from Vehicle will Air and Auto both initialize
the common Vehicle object? If so, which one will be called first? What if
Air and Auto use different Vehicle constructors? All these
questions can be avoided by passing the responsibility for the initialization
of a common base class to the class eventually using the common base class
object. In the above example Third. Hence Third is provided an
opportunity to specify the constructor to use when initializing First.
Multiple inheritance may also be used to inherit from classes that do not all
use virtual inheritance. Assume we have two classes, Derived1 and
Derived2, both (possibly virtually) derived from Base.
We will address the question which constructors will be called when calling a
constructor of the class Final: public Derived1, public Derived2.
To distinguish the involved constructors Base1 indicates the Base
class constructor called as base class initializer for Derived1 (and
analogously: Base2 called from Derived2). A plain Base  indicates
Base's  default constructor.
Derived1 and Derived2 indicate the base class initializers used when
constructing a Final object.
Now we're ready to distinguish the various cases when constructing an object
of the class Final: public Derived1, public Derived2:
        
                    Derived1: public Base
                    Derived2: public Base
            This is normal, non virtual multiple derivation. The
                following constructors are called in the order shown:
                
                    Base1,
                    Derived1,
                    Base2,
                    Derived2
            
        
                    Derived1: public Base
                    Derived2: virtual public Base
            OnlyDerived2uses virtual derivation.Derived2's base class constructor is ignored. Instead,Basewill be called and it will be called prior to any other constructor:Base, Base1, Derived1, Derived2As only one class uses virtual derivation, there will still be twoBaseclass objects in the eventualFinalclass.
                    Derived1: virtual public Base
                    Derived2: public Base
            OnlyDerived1uses virtual derivation.Derived1's base class constructor is ignored. Instead,Basewill be called and it will be called prior to any other constructor. Different from the first (non-virtual) caseBaseis now called, rather thanBase1:Base, Derived1, Base2, Derived2
                    Derived1: virtual public Base
                    Derived2: virtual public Base
            Both base classes use virtual derivation and so only oneBaseclass object will be present in theFinalclass object. The following constructors are called in the order shown:Base, Derived1, Derived2
Truck (cf.
section 13.4):
        
    class Truck: public Auto
    {
        int d_trailer_mass;
        public:
            Truck();
            Truck(int engine_mass, int sp, char const *nm,
                   int trailer_mass);
            void setMass(int engine_mass, int trailer_mass);
            int mass() const;
    };
    Truck::Truck(int engine_mass, int sp, char const *nm,
                  int trailer_mass)
    :
        Auto(engine_mass, sp, nm)
    {
        d_trailer_mass = trailer_mass;
    }
    int Truck::mass() const
    {
        return                  // sum of:
            Auto::mass() +    //   engine part plus
            trailer_mass;         //   the trailer
    }
    This definition shows how a Truck object is constructed to contain two
mass fields: one via its derivation from Auto and one via its own int
d_trailer_mass data member. Such a definition is of course valid, but it
could also be rewritten. We could derive a Truck from an Auto
and from a Vehicle, thereby explicitly requesting the double presence
of a Vehicle; one for the mass of the engine and cabin, and one for the
mass of the trailer. A slight complication is that a class organization like
        
    class Truck: public Auto, public Vehicle
    is not accepted by the C++ compiler. As a Vehicle is already part
of an Auto, it is therefore not needed once again. This organzation may,
however be forced using a small trick. By creating an additional class
inheriting from Vehicle and deriving Truck from that additional class
rather than directly from Vehicle the problem is solved. Simply derive a
class TrailerVeh from Vehicle, and then Truck from Auto and
TrailerVeh:
        
    class TrailerVeh: public Vehicle
    {
        public:
            TrailerVeh(int mass)
            :
                Vehicle(mass)
            {}
    };
    class Truck: public Auto, public TrailerVeh
    {
        public:
            Truck();
            Truck(int engine_mass, int sp, char const *nm, int trailer_mass);
            void setMass(int engine_mass, int trailer_mass);
            int mass() const;
    };
    inline Truck::Truck(int engine_mass, int sp, char const *nm,
                        int trailer_mass)
    :
        Auto(engine_mass, sp, nm),
        TrailerVeh(trailer_mass)
    {}
    inline int Truck::mass() const
    {
        return                      // sum of:
            Auto::mass() +        //   engine part plus
            TrailerVeh::mass();   //   the trailer
    }
typeid operators.
    dynamic_cast  is used  to convert a base
class 
 pointer or reference to a
derived class pointer or reference. This is also known as 
down-casting.
        typeid operator returns the actual type of an expression.
            
    dynamic_cast<> operator is used to convert a base class pointer
or 
 reference to, respectively, a
derived class pointer or reference. This is also called 
down-casting
as direction of the cast is down the inheritance tree.
A dynamic cast is performed at run-time. A prerequisite for using a dynamic cast is the existence of at least one virtual member function in the base class.
In the following example a pointer to the class Derived is obtained from
the Base class pointer bp:
        
    class Base
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Base();
    };
    class Derived: public Base
    {
        public:
            char const *toString();
    };
    inline char const *Derived::toString()
    {
        return "Derived object";
    }
    int main()
    {
        Base *bp;
        Derived *dp,
        Derived d;
        bp = &d;
        dp = dynamic_cast<Derived *>(bp);
        if (dp)
            cout << dp->toString() << '\n';
        else
            cout << "dynamic cast conversion failed\n";
    }
    In the condition of the above if statement the success of the dynamic
cast is verified. This verification must be performed at run-time, as the
actual class of the objects to which the pointer points is only known then.
If a base class pointer is provided, the dynamic cast operator returns 0 on
failure and a pointer to the requested derived class on success.
Assume a vector<Base *> is used. Such a vector's pointers may point to
objects of various classes, all derived from Base. A dynamic cast
returns a pointer to the specified class if the base class pointer indeed
points to an object of the specified class and returns 0 otherwise. So we could
determine the actual class of an object a pointer points to by performing a
series of checks to find the actual derived class to which a base class
pointer points. Example:
        
    class Base
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Base();
    };
    class Derived1: public Base;
    class Derived2: public Base;
    int main()
    {
        vector<Base *> vb(initializeBase());
        Base *bp = vb.front();
        if (dynamic_cast<Derived1 *>(bp))
            cout << "bp points to a Derived1 class object\n";
        else if (dynamic_cast<Derived2 *>(bp))
            cout << "bp points to a Derived2 class object\n";
    }
    Alternatively, a reference to a base class object may be available. In
this case the dynamic_cast operator will throw an 
exception if the down
casting fails. Example:
        
    #include <iostream>
    class Base
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Base();
            virtual char const *toString();
    };
    inline char const *Base::toString()
    {
        return "Base::toString() called";
    }
    class Derived1: public Base
    {};
    class Derived2: public Base
    {};
    Base::~Base()
    {}
    void process(Base &b)
    {
        try
        {
            std::cout << dynamic_cast<Derived1 &>(b).toString() << '\n';
        }
        catch (std::bad_cast)
        {}
        try
        {
            std::cout << dynamic_cast<Derived2 &>(b).toString() << '\n';
        }
        catch (std::bad_cast)
        {
            std::cout << "Bad cast to Derived2\n";
        }
    }
    int main()
    {
        Derived1 d;
        process(d);
    }
    /*
        Generated output:
        Base::toString() called
        Bad cast to Derived2
    */
    In this example the value std::bad_cast 
 is used. A
std::bad_cast exception is thrown if the dynamic cast of a reference to a
derived class object fails.
Note the form of the catch clause: bad_cast is the name of a type.
Section 17.4.1 describes how  such a type can be defined.
The dynamic cast operator is a useful tool when an existing base class cannot or should not be modified (e.g., when the sources are not available), and a derived class may be modified instead. Code receiving a base class pointer or reference may then perform a dynamic cast to the derived class to access the derived class's functionality.
One may wonder what the difference is between a dynamic_cast and a
reinterpret_cast. One of the differences is of course that the
dynamic_cast can operate on references while the reinterpret_cast can
only operate on pointers. But is there a difference when both arguments are
pointers?
When the reinterpret_cast is used, we tell the compiler that it literally
should re-interpret a block of memory as something else. A reinterpret cast
could be used to access the individual bytes of an int. An int
consists of sizeof(int) bytes, and these bytes can be accessed by
reinterpreting the location of the int value as a char *. When using a
reinterpret_cast the compiler can no longer offer safeguards against
stupidity. The compiler will happily reinterpret_cast an int * to a
double *, but the resulting dereference will produce at the very least a
questionable value.
The dynamic_cast also reinterprets a block of memory, but here a run-time
safeguard is provided. The dynamic cast fails when the requested type doesn't
match the actual type of the object we're pointing at. The dynamic_cast's
purpose is also much more restricted than the reinterpret_cast's purpose,
as it can only be used for downcasting to derived classes having virtual
members.
In the end a dynamic cast is a cast, and casts should be avoided. When the need for dynamic casting arises ask yourself whether the base class has appropriately been designed. In situations where code expects a base class reference or pointer the base class interface should be all that is required and using a dynamic cast should not be necessary. Maybe the base class's virtual interface can be modified so as to prevent the use of dynamic casts. Start frowning when encountering code using dynamic casts. When using dynamic casts in your own code always properly document why the dynamic cast was appropriately used and could not have been avoided.
dynamic_cast operator, 
typeid is usually applied to
references to base class objects that refer to derived class
objects. Typeid should only be used with base classes offering virtual
members. Before using typeid the 
<typeinfo> header file must have been
included.
The typeid operator returns an object of type type_info.
Different compilers may offer different implementations of the class
type_info, but at the very least typeid must offer the following
interface:
        
    class type_info
    {
        public:
            virtual ~type_info();
            int operator==(type_info const &other) const;
            int operator!=(type_info const &other) const;
            bool before(type_info const &rhs) const
            char const *name() const;
        private:
            type_info(type_info const &other);
            type_info &operator=(type_info const &other);
    };
    Note that this class has a private copy constructor and a private
overloaded assignment operator. This prevents code from  constructing
type_info objects and prevents code from assigning type_info objects
to each other. Instead, type_info objects are
constructed and returned by the typeid operator.
If the typeid operator is passed a base class reference it is able to
return the actual name of the type the reference refers to. Example:
        
    class Base;
    class Derived: public Base;
    Derived d;
    Base    &br = d;
    cout << typeid(br).name() << '\n';
    In this example the typeid operator is given a base class reference.
It prints the text ``Derived'', being the 
class name of the class
br actually refers to. If Base does not contain virtual functions, the
text ``Base'' is printed.
The typeid operator can be used to determine the name of the actual
type of 
 expressions, not just of class type
objects. For example:
        
    cout << typeid(12).name() << '\n';     // prints:  int
    cout << typeid(12.23).name() << '\n';  // prints:  double
    Note, however, that the above example is suggestive at most. It may
print int and double, but this is not necessarily the case. If
portability is required, make sure no tests against these static, built-in
text-strings are required. Check out what your compiler produces in case of
doubt.
In situations where the typeid operator is applied to
determine the type of a derived class, a base class reference
        
    should be used as the argument of the typeid operator. Consider
the following example:
        
    class Base;     // contains at least one virtual function
    class Derived: public Base;
    Base *bp = new Derived;     // base class pointer to derived object
    if (typeid(bp) == typeid(Derived *))    // 1: false
        ...
    if (typeid(bp) == typeid(Base *))       // 2: true
        ...
    if (typeid(bp) == typeid(Derived))      // 3: false
        ...
    if (typeid(bp) == typeid(Base))         // 4: false
        ...
    if (typeid(*bp) == typeid(Derived))     // 5: true
        ...
    if (typeid(*bp) == typeid(Base))        // 6: false
        ...
    Base &br = *bp;
    if (typeid(br) == typeid(Derived))      // 7: true
        ...
    if (typeid(br) == typeid(Base))         // 8: false
        ...
    Here, (1) returns false as a Base * is not a Derived
*. (2) returns true, as the two pointer types are the same, (3)
and (4) return false as pointers to objects are not the objects
themselves.
On the other hand, if *bp is used in the above expressions, then
(1) and (2) return false as an object (or reference to an object)
is not a pointer to an object, whereas (5) now returns true: *bp
actually refers to a Derived class object, and typeid(*bp) will return
typeid(Derived).  A similar result is obtained if a base class reference
is used: 7 returning true and 8 returning false.
The type_info::before(type_info const &rhs) member is used to
determine the 
collating order of classes. This is useful when comparing
two types for equality.  The function returns a nonzero value if *this
precedes rhs in the hierarchy or collating order of the used types. When a
derived class is compared to its base class the comparison returns 0,
otherwise a non-zero value. E.g.:
        
    cout << typeid(ifstream).before(typeid(istream)) << '\n' << // not 0
            typeid(istream).before(typeid(ifstream)) << '\n';   // 0
    With built-in types the implementor may implement that non-0 is returned
when a `wider' type is compared to a `smaller' type and 0 otherwise:
        
    cout << typeid(double).before(typeid(int)) << '\n' <<   // not 0
            typeid(int).before(typeid(double)) << '\n';     // 0
    When two equal types are compared, 0 is returned:
        
    cout << typeid(ifstream).before(typeid(ifstream)) << '\n';   // 0
    When a 0-pointer is passed to the operator typeid a 
bad_typeid
exception is thrown.
We've seen that polymorphic classes on the one hand offer interface members defining the functionality that can be requested of base classes and on the other hand offer virtual members that can be overridden. One of the signs of good class design is that member functions are designed according to the principle of `one function, one task'. In the current context: a class member should either be a member of the class's public or protected interface or it should be available as a virtual member for reimplementation by derived classes. Often this boils down to virtual members that are defined in the base class's private section. Those functions shouldn't be called by code using the base class, but they exist to be overridden by derived classes using polymorphism to redefine the base class's behavior.
The underlying principle was mentioned before in the introductional paragraph of this chapter: according to the Liskov Substitution Principle ( LSP) an is-a relationship between classes (indicating that a derived class object is a base class object) implies that a derived class object may be used in code expecting a base class object.
In this case inheritance is used not to let the derived class use the facilities already implemented by the base class but to reuse the base class polymorphically by reimplementing the base class's virtual members in the derived class.
In this section we'll discuss the reasons for using inheritance. Why should inheritance (not) be used? If it is used what do we try to accomplish by it?
Inheritance often competes with composition. Consider the following two alternative class designs:
    class Derived: // derived from Base
    { ... };
    class Composed
    {
        Base d_base;
        ...
    };
    Why and when prefer Derived over Composed and vice versa? What
kind of inheritance should be used when designing the class Derived?
    Composed and Derived are offered as alternatives we are
        looking at the design of a class (Derived or Composed) that
        
is-implemented-in-terms-of another class.
    Composed does itself not make Base's interface
        available, Derived shouldn't do so either. The underlying
        principle is that 
private inheritance should be used when
        deriving a classs Derived from Base where Derived
        is-implemented-in-terms-of Base.
    std::string members) which can not be realized using
            inheritance.
        Base offers members in its protected interface that
            must be used when implementing Derived inheritance must also
            be used. Again: since we're implementing-in-terms-of the
            inheritance type should be private.
        D) itself is intended as a base class that should only make
            the members of its own base class (B) available to classes
            that are derived from it (i.e., D).
        
Private inheritance should also be used when a derived class is-a certain
type of base class, but in order to initialize that base class an object of
another class type must be available. Example: a new istream class-type
(say: a stream IRandStream from which random numbers can be extracted)
will be derived from std::istream.  Although an istream can be
constructed empty (receiving its streambuf later using its rdbuf
member), it is clearly preferable to initialize the istream base class
right away.
Assuming that a Randbuffer: public std::streambuf has been created for
generating random numbers then IRandStream can be derived from
Randbuffer and std::ostream. That way the ostream base class can
be initialized using the Randbuffer base class.
As a RandStream is definitely not a Randbuffer public inheritance
is not appropriate. In this case IRandStream
is-implemented-in-terms-of a Randbuffer and so private inheritance
should be used.
IRandStream's class interface should therefore start like this:
        
    class IRandStream: private Randbuffer, public std::istream
    {
        public:
            IRandStream(int lowest, int highest)    // defines the range
            :
                Randbuffer(lowest, highest),
                std::istream(this)                  // passes &Randbuffer
            {}
        ...
    };
Public inheritance should be reserved for classes for which the LSP holds true. In those cases the derived classes can always be used instead of the base class from which they derive by code merely using base class references, pointers or members (I.e., conceptually the derived class is-a base class). This most often applies to classes derived from base classes offering virtual members. To separate the user interface from the redefinable interface the base class's public interface should not contain virtual members (except for the virtual destructor) and the virtual members should all be in the base class's private section. Such virtual members can still be overridden by derived classes (this should not come as a surprise, considering how polymorphism is implemented) and this design offers the base class full control over the context in which the redefined members are used. Often the public interface merely calls a virtual member, but those members can always be redefined to perform additional duties.
The prototypical form of a base class therefore looks like this:
    class Base
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Base()
            void process();             // calls a virtual member
        private:
            virtual void processImp();  // overridden by derived classes
    };
    Alternatively a base class may offer a non-virtual destructor, which
should then be protected. It shouldn't be public to prevent deleting objects
through their base class pointers (in which case virtual destructors should be
used). It should be protected to allow derived class destructors to call their
base class destructors. Such base classes should, for the same reasons, have
non-public constructors and overloaded assignment operators.
std::streambuf receives the character sequences
processed by streams and defines the interface between stream objects and
devices (like a file on disk). A streambuf object is usually not directly
constructed, but usually it is used as base class of some derived class
implementing the communication with some concrete device.
The primary reason for existence of the class streambuf is to decouple
the stream classes from the devices they operate upon. The rationale here
is to add an extra layer between the classes allowing us to communicate with
devices and the devices themselves. This implements a 
chain of command
which is seen regularly in software design.
The chain of command is considered a generic pattern when designing reusable software, encountered also in, e.g., the TCP/IP stack.
A streambuf can be considered yet another example of the chain of
command pattern. Here the program talks to stream objects, which in turn
forward their requests to streambuf objects, which in turn communicate
with the devices. Thus, as we will see shortly, we are able to do in
user-software what had to be done via (expensive) system calls before.
The class streambuf has no public constructor, but does make available
several public member functions. In addition to these public member functions,
several member functions are only available to classes derived from
streambuf.  In section 14.7.2 a predefined specialization of the
class streambuf is introduced. All public members of streambuf
discussed here are also available in filebuf.
The next section shows the streambuf members that may be overridden
when deriving classes from streambuf. Chapter 23 offers
concrete examples of classes derived from streambuf.
The class streambuf is used by streams performing input operations and
by streams performing output operations and their member functions can be
ordered likewise. The type std::streamsize
 used below may,
for all practical purposes, be considered equal to the type size_t.
    
    When inserting information into ostream objects the information is
eventually passed on to the ostream's streambuf. The streambuf may
decide to throw an exception. However, this exception will not leave the
ostream using the streambuf. Rather, the exception is caught by the
ostream, which will set its ios::bad_bit. Exception raised by
manipulators inserted into ostream objects are not caught by the
ostream objects.
Public members for input operations
std::streamsize in_avail():This member function returns a lower bound on the number of characters that can be read immediately.
int sbumpc():The next available character orEOFis returned. The returned character is removed from thestreambufobject. If no input is available,sbumpcwill call the (protected) memberuflow(see section 14.7.1 below) to make new characters available.EOFis returned if no more characters are available.
int sgetc():The next available character orEOFis returned. The character is not removed from thestreambufobject. To remove a character from thestreambufobject,sbumpc(orsgetn) can be used.
int sgetn(char *buffer, std::streamsize n):At mostncharacters are retrieved from the input buffer, and stored inbuffer. The actual number of characters read is returned. The (protected) memberxsgetn(see section 14.7.1 below) is called to obtain the requested number of characters.
int snextc():The current character is obtained from the input buffer and returned as the next available character orEOFis returned. The character is not removed from thestreambufobject.
int sputback(char c):Insertscinto thestreambuf's buffer to be returned as the next character to read from thestreambufobject. Caution should be exercised when using this function: often there is a maximum of just one character that can be put back.
int sungetc():Returns the last character read to the input buffer, to be read again at the next input operation. Caution should be exercised when using this function: often there is a maximum of just one character that can be put back.
Public members for output operations
int pubsync():Synchronizes (i.e., flush) the buffer by writing any information currently available in thestreambuf's buffer to the device. Normally only used by classes derived fromstreambuf.
int sputc(char c):Charactercis inserted into thestreambufobject. If, after writing the character, the buffer is full, the function calls the (protected) member functionoverflowto flush the buffer to the device (see section 14.7.1 below).
int sputn(char const *buffer, std::streamsize n):At mostncharacters frombufferare inserted into thestreambufobject. The actual number of characters inserted is returned. This member function calls the (protected) memberxsputn(see section 14.7.1 below) to insert the requested number of characters.
Public members for miscellaneous operations
The next three members are normally only used by classes derived from
streambuf.
    
ios::pos_type pubseekoff(ios::off_type offset, ios::seekdir way,
            ios::openmode mode = ios::in | ios::out):Sets the offset of the next character to be read or written tooffset, relative to the standardios::seekdirvalues indicating the direction of the seeking operation.
ios::pos_type pubseekpos(ios::pos_type offset,
            ios::openmode mode = ios::in | ios::out):Sets the 
absolute position of the next character to be read or
        written to pos.
    streambuf *pubsetbuf(char* buffer, std::streamsize n):Thestreambufobject will use thebufferaccomodating at leastncharacters.
streambuf are important for
understanding and using streambuf objects. Athough there are both
protected 
data members and protected 
member functions defined in the
class streambuf the protected data members are not mentioned here as
using them would violates the principle of 
data hiding. As
streambuf's set of member functions is quite extensive, it is hardly ever
necessary to use its data members directly. The following subsections do not
even list all protected member functions but only those are covered that are
useful for constructing specializations.
Streambuf objects control a buffer, used for input and/or output, for
which begin-, actual- and end-pointers have been defined, as depicted in
figure 15.
    

Streambuf offers one protected constructor:
    
streambuf::streambuf():Default (protected) constructor of the class streambuf.
    virtual may or course be redefined in derived
classes:
    char *eback():Streambufmaintains three pointers controlling its input buffer:ebackpoints to the `end of the putback' area: characters can safely be put back up to this position. See also figure 15.Ebackpoints to the beginning of the input buffer.
char *egptr():Egptrpoints just beyond the last character that can be retrieved from the input buffer. See also figure 15. Ifgptrequalsegptrthe buffer must be refilled. This should be implemented by callingunderflow, see below.
void gbump(int n):The object'sgptr(see below) is advanced overnpositions.
char *gptr():Gptr points to the next character to be
        retrieved from the object's input buffer. See also figure
        15.virtual int pbackfail(int c):This member function may be overridden by derived classes to do something intelligent when putting back charactercfails. One might consider restoring the old read pointer when input buffer's begin has been reached. This member function is called when ungetting or putting back a character fails. In particular, it is called whenIf
gptr() == 0: no buffering used,
gptr() == eback(): no more room to push back,
*gptr() != c: a different character than the next character to be read must be pushed back.c == endOfFile()then the input device must be reset by one character position. Otherwisecmust be prepended to the characters to be read. The function should returnEOFon failure. Otherwise 0 can be returned.
void setg(char *beg, char *next, char *beyond):This member function initializes an input buffer.begpoints to the beginning of the input area,nextpoints to the next character to be retrieved, andbeyondpoints to the location just beyond the input buffer's last character. Usuallynextis at leastbeg + 1, to allow for a put back operation. No input buffering is used when this member is called assetg(0, 0, 0). See also the memberuflow, below.
virtual streamsize showmanyc():(Pronounce: s-how-many-c) This member function may be overridden by derived classes. It must return a guaranteed lower bound on the number of characters that can be read from the device beforeufloworunderflowreturnsEOF. By default 0 is returned (meaning no or some characters will be returned before the latter two functions returnEOF). When a positive value is returned then the next call ofu(nder)flowwill not returnEOF.
virtual int uflow():This member function may be overridden by derived classes to reload an input buffer with fresh characters. Its default implementation is to callunderflow(see below). Ifunderflow()fails,EOFis returned. Otherwise, the next available character is returned as*gptr()following agbump(-1).Uflowalso moves the pending character that is returned to the backup sequence. This is different fromunderflow(), which merely returns the next available character, but does not alter the input pointer positions.When no input buffering is required this function, rather than
underflow, can be overridden to produce the next available character from the device to read from.
virtual int underflow():This member function may be overridden by derived classes to read another character from the device. The default implementation is to returnEOF.It is called when
- there is no input buffer (
eback() == 0)
gptr() >= egptr(): the input buffer is exhausted.Often, when buffering is used, the complete buffer is not refreshed as this would make it impossible to put back characters immediately following a reload. Instead, buffers are often refreshed in halves. This system is called a split buffer.
Classes derived from
streambuffor reading normally at least overrideunderflow. The prototypical example of an overriddenunderflowfunction looks like this:int underflow() { if (not refillTheBuffer()) // assume a member d_buffer is available return EOF; // reset the input buffer pointers setg(d_buffer, d_buffer, d_buffer + d_nCharsRead); // return the next available character // (the cast is used to prevent // misinterpretations of 0xff characters // as EOF) return static_cast<unsigned char>(*gptr()); }
virtual streamsize xsgetn(char *buffer, streamsize n):This member function may be overridden by derived classes to retrieve at oncencharacters from the input device. The default implementation is to callsbumpcfor every single character meaning that by default this member (eventually) callsunderflowfor every single character. The function returns the actual number of characters read orEOF. IfEOFis returned thestreambufwill stop reading the device.
virtual int overflow(int c):This member function may be overridden by derived classes to flush the characters currently stored in the output buffer to the output device, and then to reset the output buffer pointers so as to represent an empty buffer. Its parametercis initialized to the next character to be processed. If no output buffering is usedoverflowis called for every single character that is written to thestreambufobject. No output buffering is accomplised by setting the buffer pointers (using,setp, see below) to 0. The default implementation returnsEOF, indicating that no characters can be written to the device.Classes derived from
streambuffor writing normally at least overrideoverflow. The prototypical example of an overriddenoverflowfunction looks like this:int OFdStreambuf::overflow(int c) { sync(); // flush the buffer if (c != EOF) // write a character? { *pptr() = static_cast<char>(c); // put it into the buffer pbump(1); // advance the buffer's pointer } return c; }
char *pbase():Streambufmaintains three pointers controlling its output buffer:pbasepoints to the beginning of the output buffer area. See also figure 15.
char *epptr():Streambufmaintains three pointers controlling its output buffer:epptrpoints just beyond the output buffer's last available location. See also figure 15. Ifpptr(see below) equalsepptrthe buffer must be flushed. This is implemented by callingoverflow, see before.
void pbump(int n):The location returned bypptr(see below) is advanced byn. The next character to write will be entered at that location.
char *pptr():Streambufmaintains three pointers controlling its output buffer:pptrpoints to the location in the output buffer where the next available character should be written. See also figure 15.
void setp(char *beg, char *beyond):Streambuf's output buffer is initialized to the locations passed tosetp.Begpoints to the beginning of the output buffer andbeyondpoints just beyond the last available location of the output buffer. Usesetp(0, 0)to indicate that no buffering should be used. In that caseoverflowis called for every single character to write to the device.
virtual streamsize xsputn(char const *buffer, streamsize n):This member function may be overridden by derived classes to write a series of at mostncharacters to the output buffer. The actual number of inserted characters is returned. IfEOFis returned writing to the device stops. The default implementation callssputcfor each individual character, so redefining this member is only necessary if a more efficient implementation is required.
virtual streambuf *setbuf(char *buffer, streamsize n):This member function may be overridden by derived classes to install a
        buffer. The default implementation is to do nothing. It is called by
        pubsetbuf.
    virtual
            pos_type seekoff(off_type offset, ios::seekdir way,ios::openmode mode = ios::in | ios::out)
       This member function may be overridden by derived classes to reset the next pointer for input or output to a new relative position (usingios::beg, ios::curorios::end). The default implementation indicates failure by returning -1. The function is called whentellgortellpare called. When derived class supports seeking, then it should also define this function to handle repositioning requests. It is called bypubseekoff. The new position or an invalid position (i.e., -1) is returned.
virtual pos_type seekpos(pos_type offset,
            ios::openmode mode =ios::in | ios::out):
       This member function may be overridden by derived classes to
        reset the next pointer for input or output to a new absolute
        position (i.e, relative to ios::beg). The default implementation
        indicates failure by returning -1.
    virtual int sync():This member function may be overridden by derived classes to flush the
        output buffer to the output device or to reset the input device just
        beyond the position of the character that was returned last. It
        returns 0 on success, -1 on failure. The default implementation (not
        using a buffer) is to return 0, indicating successful syncing. This
        member is used to ensure that any characters that are still buffered
        are written to the device or to put unconsumed characters back to the
        device when the streambuf object ceases to exist.
   streambuf at least underflow should
be overridden by classes intending to read information from devices, and
overflow should be overridden by classes intending to write information to
devices. Several examples of classes derived from streambuf are provided
in chapter 23.
Fstream class type objects use a combined input/output buffer. This is
a result from that istream and ostream being virtually derived from
ios, which class contains the streambuf. To construct a class
supporting both input and output using separate buffers, the streambuf
itself may define two buffers. When seekoff is called for reading, a
mode parameter can be set to ios::in, otherwise to ios::out. Thus
the derived class knows whether it should access the read buffer or the
write buffer. Of course, underflow and overflow do not have to
inspect the mode flag as they by implication know on which buffer they should
operate.
class 
filebuf is a specialization of streambuf used by the
file 
stream classes. Before using a filebuf the header file
<fstream> must have been included.
In addition to the (public) members that are available through the class
streambuf, filebuf offers the following (public) members:
    
filebuf():Filebufoffers a public constructor. It initializes a plainfilebufobject that is not yet connected to a stream.
bool is_open():Trueis returned if thefilebufis actually connected to an open file,falseotherwise. See theopenmember, below.
filebuf *open(char const *name, ios::openmode mode):This member function associates thefilebufobject with a file whose name is provided. The file is opened according to the providedopenmode.
filebuf *close():This member function closes the association between thefilebufobject and its file. The association is automatically closed when thefilebufobject ceases to exist.
Exception whose process member
would behave differently, depending on the kind of exception that was
thrown. Now that we've introduced 
polymorphism we can further develop this
example.
It will probably not come as a surprise that our class Exception should be
a polymorphic base class from which special exception handling classes can be
derived. In section 9.3.1 a member severity was used offering
functionality that may be replaced by members of the Exception base class.
The base class Exception may be  designed as follows:
        
    #ifndef INCLUDED_EXCEPTION_H_
    #define INCLUDED_EXCEPTION_H_
    #include <iostream>
    #include <string>
    class Exception
    {
        std::string d_reason;
        public:
            Exception(std::string const &reason);
            virtual ~Exception();
            std::ostream &insertInto(std::ostream &out) const;
            void handle() const;
        private:
            virtual void action() const;
    };
    inline void Exception::action() const
    {
        throw;
    }
    inline Exception::Exception(std::string const &reason)
    :
        d_reason(reason)
    {}
    inline void Exception::handle() const
    {
        action();
    }
    inline std::ostream &Exception::insertInto(std::ostream &out) const
    {
        return out << d_reason;
    }
    inline std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &out, Exception const &e)
    {
        return e.insertInto(out);
    }
    #endif
    Objects of this class may be inserted into ostreams but the core
element of this class is the virtual member function action, by default
rethrowing an exception.
A derived class Warning simply prefixes the thrown warning text by the
text Warning:, but a derived class Fatal overrides
Exception::action by calling 
std::terminate, forcefully
terminating the program.
Here are the classes Warning and Fatal
        
    #ifndef WARNINGEXCEPTION_H_
    #define WARNINGEXCEPTION_H_
    #include "exception.h"
    class Warning: public Exception
    {
        public:
            Warning(std::string const &reason)
            :
                Exception("Warning: " + reason)
            {}
    };
    #endif
        
    #ifndef FATAL_H_
    #define FATAL_H_
    #include "exception.h"
    class Fatal: public Exception
    {
        public:
            Fatal(std::string  const &reason);
        private:
            virtual void action() const;
    };
    inline Fatal::Fatal(std::string  const &reason)
    :
        Exception(reason)
    {}
    inline void Fatal::action() const
    {
        std::cout << "Fatal::action() terminates" << '\n';
        std::terminate();
    }
    #endif
When the example program is started without arguments it will throw a
Fatal exception, otherwise it will throw a Warning exception. Of
course, additional exception types could also easily be defined. To make the
example compilable the Exception destructor is defined above main. The
default destructor cannot be used, as it is a virtual destructor. In practice
the destructor should be defined in its own little source file:
        
    #include "warning.h"
    #include "fatal.h"
    Exception::~Exception()
    {}
    using namespace std;
    int main(int argc, char **argv)
    try
    {
        try
        {
            if (argc == 1)
                throw Fatal("Missing Argument") ;
            else
                throw Warning("the argument is ignored");
        }
        catch (Exception const &e)
        {
            cout << e << '\n';
            e.handle();
        }
    }
    catch(...)
    {
        cout << "caught rethrown exception\n";
    }
The fundamental idea behind polymorphism is that the compiler does not know
which function to call at compile-time. The appropriate function will be
selected at run-time. That means that the address of the function must be
available somewhere, to be looked up prior to the actual call. This
`somewhere' place must be accessible to the object in question. So when a
Vehicle *vp points to a Truck object, then vp->mass() calls
Truck's member function. the address of this function is obtained through
the actual object to which vp points.
Polymorphism is commonly implemented as follows: an object containing virtual member functions also contains, usually as its first data member a hidden data member, pointing to an array containing the addresses of the class's virtual member functions. The hidden data member is usually called the vpointer, the array of virtual member function addresses the vtable.
The class's vtable is shared by all objects of that class. The overhead of polymorphism in terms of memory consumption is therefore:
vp->mass first inspects the hidden
data member of the object pointed to by vp. In the case of the vehicle
classification system, this data member points to a table containing two
addresses: one pointer to the function mass and one pointer to the
function setMass (three pointers if the class also defines (as it
should) a virtual destructor). The actually called function is determined from
this table.
The internal organization of the objects having virtual functions is illustrated in figures Figure 16 and Figure 17 (originals provided by Guillaume Caumon).


As shown by figures Figure 16 and Figure 17,
objects potentially using virtual member functions must have one (hidden) data
member to address a table of function pointers. The objects of the classes
Vehicle and Auto both address the same table. The class Truck,
however, overrides mass. Consequently, Truck needs its own vtable.
A small complication arises when a class is derived from multiple base classes, each defining virtual functions. Consider the following example:
    class Base1
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Base1();
            void fun1();        // calls vOne and vTwo
        private:
            virtual void vOne();
            virtual void vTwo();
    };
    class Base2
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Base2();
            void fun2();        // calls vThree
        private:
            virtual void vThree();
    };
    class Derived: public Base1, public Base2
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Derived();
        private:
            virtual ~vOne();
            virtual ~vThree();
    };
 In the example Derived is multiply derived from Base1 and Base2,
each supporting virtual functions. Because of this, Derived also has
virtual functions, and so Derived has a vtable allowing a base class
pointer or reference to access the proper virtual member.
When Derived::fun1 is called (or a Base1 pointer pointing to fun1
calls fun1) fun1 will call Derived::vOne and
Base1::vTwo. Likewise, when Derived::fun2 is called
Derived::vThree will be called.
The complication
 
 occurs
with Derived's vtable. When fun1 is called its class type determines
the vtable to use and hence which virtual member to call. So when vOne is
called from fun1, it is presumably the second entry in Derived's
vtable, as it must match the second entry in Base1's vtable. However, when
fun2 calls vThree it apparently is also the second entry in
Derived's vtable as it must match the second entry in Base2's vtable.
Of course this cannot be realized by a single vtable. Therefore, when multiple
inheritance is used (each base class defining virtual members) another
approach is followed to determine which virtual function to call. In this
situation (cf. figure Figure 18) the class Derived receives
two vtables, one for each of its base classes and each Derived
class object harbors two hidden vpointers, each one pointing to its
corresponding vtable.

Since base class pointers, base class references, or base class interface members unambiguously refer to one of the base classes the compiler can determine which vpointer to use.
The following therefore holds true for classes multiply derived from base classes offering virtual member functions:
    In function `Derived::Derived()':
        : undefined reference to `vtable for Derived'
    This error is generated when a virtual function's implementation is
missing in a derived class, but the function is mentioned in the derived
class's interface.
Such a situation is easily encountered:
    undefined reference to `vtable for Derived'
    
    class Base
    {
        virtual void member();
    };
    inline void Base::member()
    {}
    class Derived: public Base
    {
        virtual void member();      // only declared
    };
    int main()
    {
        Derived d;  // Will compile, since all members were declared.
                    // Linking will fail, since we don't have the
                    // implementation of Derived::member()
    }
    It's of course easy to correct the error: implement the derived class's
missing virtual member function.
According to the Prototype Design Pattern each derived class is given
the responsibility of implementing a member function returning a pointer to a
copy of the object for which the member is called. The usual name for this
function is clone. Separating the user interface from the reimplementation
interface clone is made part of the interface and newCopy is defined
in the reimplementation interface. A base class supporting `cloning' defines a
virtual destructor, clone, returning newCopy's return value and the
virtual copy constructor, a pure virtual function, having the prototype
virtual Base *newCopy() const = 0. As newCopy is a pure virtual
function all derived classes must now implement their own `virtual
constructor'.
This setup suffices in most situations where we have a pointer or
reference to a base class, but it will fail when used with abstract
containers. We can't create a vector<Base>, with Base featuring the
pure virtual copy member in its interface, as Base is called to
initialize new elements of such a vector. This is impossible as newCopy is a
pure virtual function, so a Base object can't be constructed.
The intuitive solution, providing newCopy with a default
implementation, defining it as an ordinary virtual function, fails too as the
container calls Base(Base const &other), which would have to call
newCopy to copy other.  At this point it is unclear what to do with
that copy, as the new Base object already exists, and contains no Base
pointer or reference data member to assign newCopy's return value to.
Alternatively (and preferred) the original Base class (defined as an
abstract base class) is kept as-is and a wrapper class Clonable is used
to manage the Base class pointers returned by newCopy. In chapter
17 ways to merge Base and Clonable into one class are
discussed, but for now we'll define Base and Clonable as separate
classes.
The class Clonable is a very standard class. It contains a pointer member
so it needs a copy constructor, destructor, and overloaded assignment
operator. It's given at least one non-standard member: Base &base() const,
returning a reference to the derived object to which Clonable's Base *
data member refers. It is also privided with an additional constructor to
initialize its Base * data member.
Any non-abstract class derived from Base must implement Base
*newCopy(), returning a pointer to a newly created (allocated) copy of the
object for which newCopy is called.
Once we have defined a derived class (e.g., Derived1), we can put our
Clonable and Base facilities to good use.  In the next example we see
main defining a vector<Clonable>. An anonymous Derived1
object is then inserted into the vector using the following steps:
    
Derived1 object is created;
    Clonable using Clonable(Base *bp);
    Clonable object is inserted into the vector,
using Clonable's move constructor. There are only temporary Derived
and Clonable objects at this point, so no copy construction is required.
    Clonable object containing the Derived1
* is used. No additional copies need to be made (or destroyed).
Next, the base member is used in combination with typeid to show
the actual type of the Base & object: a Derived1 object.
Main then contains the interesting definition vector<Clonable>
v2(bv). Here a copy of bv is created. This copy construction observes
the actual types of the Base references, making sure that the appropriate
types appear in the vector's copy.
At the end of the program, we have created two Derived1 objects, which
are correctly deleted by the vector's destructors. Here is the full program,
illustrating the `virtual constructor' concept (
   Jesse van den Kieboom created an alternative implementation of a class
    Clonable, implemented as a class template. His
    implementation is found here.):
        
    #include <iostream>
    #include <vector>
    #include <algorithm>
    #include <typeinfo>
// Base and its inline member:
    class Base
    {
        public:
            virtual ~Base();
            Base *clone() const;
        private:
            virtual Base *newCopy() const = 0;
    };
    inline Base *Base::clone() const
    {
        return newCopy();
    }
// Clonable and its inline members:
    class Clonable
    {
        Base *d_bp;
        public:
            Clonable();
            explicit Clonable(Base *base);
            ~Clonable();
            Clonable(Clonable const &other);
            Clonable(Clonable const &&tmp);
            Clonable &operator=(Clonable const &other);
            Clonable &operator=(Clonable const &&tmp);
            Base &base() const;
    };
    inline Clonable::Clonable()
    :
        d_bp(0)
    {}
    inline Clonable::Clonable(Base *bp)
    :
        d_bp(bp)
    {}
    inline Clonable::Clonable(Clonable const &other)
    :
        d_bp(other.d_bp->clone())
    {}
    inline Clonable::Clonable(Clonable const &&tmp)
    :
        d_bp(tmp.d_bp)
    {
        const_cast<Clonable &>(tmp).d_bp = 0;
    }
    inline Clonable::~Clonable()
    {
        delete d_bp;
    }
    inline Base &Clonable::base() const
    {
        return *d_bp;
    }
// Derived and its inline member:
    class Derived1: public Base
    {
        public:
            ~Derived1();
        private:
            virtual Base *newCopy() const;
    };
    inline Base *Derived1::newCopy() const
    {
        return new Derived1(*this);
    }
// Members not implemented inline:
    Base::~Base()
    {}
    Clonable &Clonable::operator=(Clonable const &other)
    {
        Clonable tmp(other);
        std::swap(d_bp, tmp.d_bp);
        return *this;
    }
    Clonable &Clonable::operator=(Clonable const &&tmp)
    {
        std::swap(d_bp, const_cast<Clonable &>(tmp).d_bp);
        return *this;
    }
    Derived1::~Derived1()
    {
        std::cout << "~Derived1() called\n";
    }
// The main function:
    using namespace std;
    int main()
    {
        vector<Clonable> bv;
        bv.push_back(Clonable(new Derived1()));
        cout << "bv[0].name: " << typeid(bv[0].base()).name() << '\n';
        vector<Clonable> v2(bv);
        cout << "v2[0].name: " << typeid(v2[0].base()).name() << '\n';
    }
    /*
        Output:
            bv[0].name: 8Derived1
            v2[0].name: 8Derived1
            ~Derived1() called
            ~Derived1() called
    */