Idiomatic way to prevent slicing? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InForce...

What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?

Did USCIS resume its biometric service for UK visa?

I looked up a future colleague on linkedin before I started a job. I told my colleague about it and he seemed surprised. Should I apologize?

Families of ordered set partitions with disjoint blocks

How to deal with fear of taking dependencies

Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"

What is the meaning of Triage in Cybersec world?

Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed

Why is it "Tumoren" and not "Tumore"?

It's possible to achieve negative score?

Why is the maximum length of openwrt’s root password 8 characters?

"Riffle" two strings

What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation

How was Skylab's orbit inclination chosen?

Deadlock Graph and Interpretation, solution to avoid

Why don't Unix/Linux systems traverse through directories until they find the required version of a linked library?

Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?

Does it makes sense to buy a new cycle to learn riding?

Is it possible for the two major parties in the UK to form a coalition with each other instead of a much smaller party?

Can we apply L'Hospital's rule where the derivative is not continuous?

Does duplicating a spell with wish count as casting that spell?

Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?

How to create dashed lines/arrows in Illustrator

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect



Idiomatic way to prevent slicing?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InForce function to be called only with specific typesWhat's the best way to trim std::string?What is object slicing?What's the point of g++ -Wreorder?Easiest way to convert int to string in C++Does the C++ spec allow an instance of a non-virtual class to include memory for a vtable pointer?capture variables inside of subclass?Detecting if a type can be derived from in C++C++ overload function by return typeIs using inline classes inside a function permitted to be used as template types?Short-circuit evaluation and assignment in C++





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







7















Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



#include <iostream>
struct foo { int a; };
struct bar : foo { int b; };

int main() {
bar x{1,2};
foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!
}


This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










share|improve this question































    7















    Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



    #include <iostream>
    struct foo { int a; };
    struct bar : foo { int b; };

    int main() {
    bar x{1,2};
    foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!
    }


    This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



    What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










    share|improve this question



























      7












      7








      7


      3






      Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



      #include <iostream>
      struct foo { int a; };
      struct bar : foo { int b; };

      int main() {
      bar x{1,2};
      foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!
      }


      This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



      What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










      share|improve this question
















      Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



      #include <iostream>
      struct foo { int a; };
      struct bar : foo { int b; };

      int main() {
      bar x{1,2};
      foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!
      }


      This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



      What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?







      c++ inheritance object-slicing






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 15 mins ago









      rrauenza

      3,55921835




      3,55921835










      asked 3 hours ago









      user463035818user463035818

      18.7k42970




      18.7k42970
























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          10














          I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



          struct foo 
          {
          int a;
          foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

          template<typename T>
          foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

          template<typename T>
          foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
          };


          then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






          share|improve this answer


























          • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

            – geza
            3 hours ago











          • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

            – NathanOliver
            2 hours ago











          • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

            – eerorika
            2 hours ago











          • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

            – user463035818
            2 hours ago






          • 1





            I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

            – NathanOliver
            2 hours ago





















          3














          You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



          struct foo {
          // ...
          protected:
          foo(foo&) = default;
          };





          share|improve this answer



















          • 3





            but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

            – user463035818
            3 hours ago



















          3














          Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



          #include <iostream>
          struct foo { int a; };
          struct bar : foo { int b; };

          int main() {
          bar x{1,2};
          auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
          }


          If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



          Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



          #include <iostream>

          struct foo { int a; };
          struct bar
          {
          bar(int a, int b)
          : foo_(a)
          , b(b)
          {}

          int b;

          int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

          private:
          foo foo_;
          };

          int main() {
          bar x{1,2};
          // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

          }


          Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



          #include <iostream>

          struct foo {
          int a;
          protected:
          foo(foo const&) = default;
          foo(foo&&) = default;
          foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
          foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

          };

          struct bar : foo
          {
          bar(int a, int b)
          : foo{a}, b{b}
          {}

          int b;
          };

          int main() {
          auto x = bar (1,2);
          // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
          }





          share|improve this answer
























            Your Answer






            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            });
            });
            }, "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "1"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55600025%2fidiomatic-way-to-prevent-slicing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            10














            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 
            {
            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            };


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






            share|improve this answer


























            • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

              – geza
              3 hours ago











            • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago











            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              2 hours ago











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago


















            10














            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 
            {
            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            };


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






            share|improve this answer


























            • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

              – geza
              3 hours ago











            • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago











            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              2 hours ago











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago
















            10












            10








            10







            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 
            {
            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            };


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






            share|improve this answer















            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 
            {
            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            };


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered 3 hours ago









            NathanOliverNathanOliver

            98.5k16138218




            98.5k16138218













            • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

              – geza
              3 hours ago











            • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago











            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              2 hours ago











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago





















            • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

              – geza
              3 hours ago











            • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago











            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              2 hours ago











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago



















            If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

            – geza
            3 hours ago





            If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

            – geza
            3 hours ago













            @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

            – NathanOliver
            2 hours ago





            @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

            – NathanOliver
            2 hours ago













            Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

            – eerorika
            2 hours ago





            Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

            – eerorika
            2 hours ago













            if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

            – user463035818
            2 hours ago





            if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

            – user463035818
            2 hours ago




            1




            1





            I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

            – NathanOliver
            2 hours ago







            I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

            – NathanOliver
            2 hours ago















            3














            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo {
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            };





            share|improve this answer



















            • 3





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              3 hours ago
















            3














            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo {
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            };





            share|improve this answer



















            • 3





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              3 hours ago














            3












            3








            3







            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo {
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            };





            share|improve this answer













            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo {
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            };






            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 3 hours ago









            eerorikaeerorika

            89.8k664136




            89.8k664136








            • 3





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              3 hours ago














            • 3





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              3 hours ago








            3




            3





            but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

            – user463035818
            3 hours ago





            but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

            – user463035818
            3 hours ago











            3














            Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



            #include <iostream>
            struct foo { int a; };
            struct bar : foo { int b; };

            int main() {
            bar x{1,2};
            auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
            }


            If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



            Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



            #include <iostream>

            struct foo { int a; };
            struct bar
            {
            bar(int a, int b)
            : foo_(a)
            , b(b)
            {}

            int b;

            int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

            private:
            foo foo_;
            };

            int main() {
            bar x{1,2};
            // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

            }


            Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



            #include <iostream>

            struct foo {
            int a;
            protected:
            foo(foo const&) = default;
            foo(foo&&) = default;
            foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
            foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

            };

            struct bar : foo
            {
            bar(int a, int b)
            : foo{a}, b{b}
            {}

            int b;
            };

            int main() {
            auto x = bar (1,2);
            // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
            }





            share|improve this answer




























              3














              Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



              #include <iostream>
              struct foo { int a; };
              struct bar : foo { int b; };

              int main() {
              bar x{1,2};
              auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
              }


              If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



              Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



              #include <iostream>

              struct foo { int a; };
              struct bar
              {
              bar(int a, int b)
              : foo_(a)
              , b(b)
              {}

              int b;

              int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

              private:
              foo foo_;
              };

              int main() {
              bar x{1,2};
              // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

              }


              Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



              #include <iostream>

              struct foo {
              int a;
              protected:
              foo(foo const&) = default;
              foo(foo&&) = default;
              foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
              foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

              };

              struct bar : foo
              {
              bar(int a, int b)
              : foo{a}, b{b}
              {}

              int b;
              };

              int main() {
              auto x = bar (1,2);
              // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
              }





              share|improve this answer


























                3












                3








                3







                Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



                #include <iostream>
                struct foo { int a; };
                struct bar : foo { int b; };

                int main() {
                bar x{1,2};
                auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
                }


                If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



                Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo { int a; };
                struct bar
                {
                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo_(a)
                , b(b)
                {}

                int b;

                int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

                private:
                foo foo_;
                };

                int main() {
                bar x{1,2};
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

                }


                Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo {
                int a;
                protected:
                foo(foo const&) = default;
                foo(foo&&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

                };

                struct bar : foo
                {
                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo{a}, b{b}
                {}

                int b;
                };

                int main() {
                auto x = bar (1,2);
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
                }





                share|improve this answer













                Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



                #include <iostream>
                struct foo { int a; };
                struct bar : foo { int b; };

                int main() {
                bar x{1,2};
                auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
                }


                If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



                Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo { int a; };
                struct bar
                {
                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo_(a)
                , b(b)
                {}

                int b;

                int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

                private:
                foo foo_;
                };

                int main() {
                bar x{1,2};
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

                }


                Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo {
                int a;
                protected:
                foo(foo const&) = default;
                foo(foo&&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

                };

                struct bar : foo
                {
                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo{a}, b{b}
                {}

                int b;
                };

                int main() {
                auto x = bar (1,2);
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
                }






                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 3 hours ago









                Richard HodgesRichard Hodges

                56.9k658105




                56.9k658105






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55600025%2fidiomatic-way-to-prevent-slicing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Installing LyX: “No textclass is found.”LyX installation error- text class not found- 'Reconfigure' or...

                    (1602) Indiana Índice Designación y nombre Características orbitales Véase...

                    Universidad Autónoma de Occidente Índice Historia Campus Facultades Programas Académicos Medios de...