Initialising base class reference members from a derived class

[Tim Clacy]

Can this be done... or is there a better way to achieve the same objective?


If an interface class contains only references (to yet more interface
classes), then can those references be initialised in a concrete derived
class? To have to initialise them in the interface class constructor makes
the interface a concrete class. I suppose they could be pointers instead of
references... but why necessary; surely the compiler has all the information
that it needs to do the job?

The objective is to be able to provide a class interface to concrete
instance(s) without exposing any implementation detail or data (private or
otherwise); in fact, the only concrete function should be the factory
interface. Here's the general idea [see below] where
'Implementation ::Connect' is a function that returns a reference to a
functor derived from 'Port':


struct Port
{
void virtual operator()() = 0;
};

struct Interface
{
Port& I1;
Port& I2;
:
};



struct Implementation : Interface
{
Implementation( ) :
I1 (Connect(fn1)),
I2 (Connect(fn2)))
{ }

void fn1();
void fn2();
:
};



Eager to see what the gurus say...


Tim

[Tim Clacy]

Re: Initialising base class reference members from a derived class

....and before I forget, is it OK to have 'virtual operator()()'? My 'virtual
operator()()' in a derived class never gets hit... but the base class
'virtual operator()()' does. Is this to be expected?

[Tim Clacy]

Re: Initialising base class reference members from a derived class

Tim Clacy wrote:[color=blue]
> ...and before I forget, is it OK to have 'virtual operator()()'? My
> 'virtual operator()()' in a derived class never gets hit... but the
> base class 'virtual operator()()' does. Is this to be expected?[/color]

....ignore that (red herring).

[Nick Hounsome]

Re: Initialising base class reference members from a derived class


"Tim Clacy" <nospamtcl@nosp amphaseone.nosp amdk> wrote in message
news:40460d4a$0 $236$4d4eb98e@n ews.dk.uu.net.. .[color=blue]
> Can this be done... or is there a better way to achieve the same[/color]
objective?[color=blue]
>
>
> If an interface class contains only references (to yet more interface
> classes), then can those references be initialised in a concrete derived
> class? To have to initialise them in the interface class constructor makes
> the interface a concrete class. I suppose they could be pointers instead[/color]
of[color=blue]
> references... but why necessary; surely the compiler has all the[/color]
information[color=blue]
> that it needs to do the job?
>
> The objective is to be able to provide a class interface to concrete
> instance(s) without exposing any implementation detail or data (private or
> otherwise); in fact, the only concrete function should be the factory
> interface. Here's the general idea [see below] where
> 'Implementation ::Connect' is a function that returns a reference to a
> functor derived from 'Port':
>
>
> struct Port
> {
> void virtual operator()() = 0;
> };
>
> struct Interface
> {
> Port& I1;
> Port& I2;
> :
> };
>[/color]

What makes you think that adding a constructor will make any difference?
Interface::Inte rface(Port& a,Port& b) : I1(a), I2(b) {}
This does not expose anything that isn't already visible.

By the way - it would be better to just use global access functions.

[color=blue]
>
>
> struct Implementation : Interface
> {
> Implementation( ) :
> I1 (Connect(fn1)),
> I2 (Connect(fn2)))
> { }
>
> void fn1();
> void fn2();
> :
> };
>
>
>
> Eager to see what the gurus say...
>
>
> Tim
>
>[/color]