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

How to interpret this form of Heaps' Law?

Is three citations per paragraph excessive for undergraduate research paper?

Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?

Can I write a for loop that iterates over both collections and arrays?

What does "rabbited" mean/imply in this sentence?

Is it possible to build an equivalent function just looking at the input and output of the original function?

Access elements in std::string where positon of string is greater than its size

I see my dog run

Is bread bad for ducks?

Why could you hear an Amstrad CPC working?

Should I use my personal or workplace e-mail when registering to external websites for work purpose?

Why is Grand Jury testimony secret?

Fractional alignment

Inflated grade on resume at previous job, might former employer tell new employer?

Extreme, unacceptable situation and I can't attend work tomorrow morning

Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?

Springs with some finite mass

It's possible to achieve negative score?

How can I create a character who can assume the widest possible range of creature sizes?

sleep command using command is not displayed in ps

Unbreakable Formation vs. Cry of the Carnarium

Why Did Howard Stark Use All The Vibranium They Had On A Prototype Shield?

aging parents with no investments

How to manage monthly salary



Idomatic 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;
}







6















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































    6















    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



























      6












      6








      6


      1






      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 1 hour ago







      user463035818

















      asked 1 hour ago









      user463035818user463035818

      18.7k42970




      18.7k42970
























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8














          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
            1 hour 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
            57 mins 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
            52 mins ago











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

            – user463035818
            49 mins 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
            46 mins 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
            1 hour ago



















          2














          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%2fidomatic-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









            8














            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
              1 hour 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
              57 mins 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
              52 mins ago











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

              – user463035818
              49 mins 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
              46 mins ago


















            8














            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
              1 hour 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
              57 mins 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
              52 mins ago











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

              – user463035818
              49 mins 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
              46 mins ago
















            8












            8








            8







            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 58 mins ago

























            answered 1 hour ago









            NathanOliverNathanOliver

            98.4k16138217




            98.4k16138217













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

              – geza
              1 hour 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
              57 mins 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
              52 mins ago











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

              – user463035818
              49 mins 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
              46 mins ago





















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

              – geza
              1 hour 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
              57 mins 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
              52 mins ago











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

              – user463035818
              49 mins 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
              46 mins ago



















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

            – geza
            1 hour ago





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

            – geza
            1 hour 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
            57 mins 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
            57 mins 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
            52 mins 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
            52 mins ago













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

            – user463035818
            49 mins ago





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

            – user463035818
            49 mins 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
            46 mins 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
            46 mins 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour 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 1 hour ago









            eerorikaeerorika

            89.7k664136




            89.7k664136








            • 3





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

              – user463035818
              1 hour ago














            • 3





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

              – user463035818
              1 hour 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
            1 hour ago





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

            – user463035818
            1 hour ago











            2














            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




























              2














              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


























                2












                2








                2







                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 1 hour 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%2fidomatic-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

                    Gersau Kjelder | Navigasjonsmeny46°59′0″N 8°31′0″E46°59′0″N...

                    Nässjö kommun Tettstader | Kjelder | NavigasjonsmenyeVIAFISNIGeoNamesMusicBrainz (area)

                    Kvitkval Innhaldsliste Taksonomi og utvikling | Utsjånad og levevis | Utbreiing | Åtferd |...