How to design extensible multiple inheritance?
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have yet another question about multiple inheritance design which has an answer i.e. here (but focused on footprint) or here (too vague), but most answers I stumbled upon is emphasizing the performance drawbacks. However (as Bjarne Stroustrup claims here) it is a language feature which should be prefered to workarounds. Here is a longer example to ilustrate the question which follows the example:
The Example
In Czech Republic, the birth number (SSN equivalent) is assigned in this format:
YYMMDDXXX, so let's have a class to get the birth date in standard D.M.YYYY:
class Human {
protected:
char output[11];
char input[10];
public:
Human (const char* number) {
strncpy(input, number, 10);
if(!number[10]) throw E_INVALID_NUMBER;
}
static int twoCharsToNum(const char* str) {
if(!isdigit(str[0]) || !isdigit(str[1])) throw E_INVALID_NUMBER;
return (str[0]-'0')*10 +str[1]-'0';
}
const char* getDate() {
sprintf(output, "%d.%d.%d", getDay(), getMonth(), getYear());
return output;
}
// range check omitted here to make code short
virtual int getDay() { return twoCharsToNum(input+4); }
virtual int getMonth() { return twoCharsToNum(input+2); }
virtual int getYear() { return twoCharsToNum(input)+1900; }
};
Three methods are virtual, because females got +50 to their month. So let's inherit Man and Woman classes to get the date properly:
class Man : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
};
class Woman : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
int getMonth() {
int result = twoCharsToNum(input+2)-50;
if(result<0) throw E_INVALID_GENDER;
if(result==0 || result>12) throw E_INVALID_RANGE;
return result;
}
};
Since 1954 the number has 4 digits appendix, not 3 (there is a sad story behind this mentioned at the end of this question). If the library was written in 1944, ten years later somebody can write a Facade to get the birth date correctly for future millenials:
class Human2 : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
virtual int getYear() {
int year = twoCharsToNum(input);
if(year<54 && strlen(number)==10) year+= 2000;
else year+= 1900;
return year;
}
};
class Man2 : public Human2 {
public:
using Human2::Human2;
};
In class Woman2
we need the Woman::getMonth
method, so we need to solve the diamond problem:
class Human2 : virtual public Human { ... };
class Woman : virtual public Human { ... }; // here is the real issue
class Woman2 : public Human2, public Woman {
using Human2::Human2;
using Woman::Woman;
};
The Diamond problem diagram:
Woman2
^ ^
| |
Woman Human2
^ ^
| |
Human
The Question
The issue is that Human
, Man
and Woman
could be in a form of binary library where the client code can not rewrite the inheritance to virtual. So how to properly design extensible library to enable multiple inheritance? Should I make every inheritance in the library scope virtual (since I don't know in advance how it could be extended), or is there any more elegant universal design?
Regarding the performance: isn't this the domain of low-level programming and compiler optimization, shouldn't the design perspective prevail on high level programming? Why compilers don't auto virtualize inheritance like they do in RVO or inline
calls decisions?
The sad story behind the example
In 1954 some technically inspired bureucrat decided that tenth cipher will be added in a way so the number will be divisible by 11. Later the genius figured out that there are numbers which can not be modified this way. So he issued an exception that in these cases the last number will be zero. Later that year an internal directive was issued, that no such exceptions will be allowed. But in the meantime some 1000+ birth numbers were issued which are not divisible by 11, but still legal. Regardless of this mess, the century of the year can be inferred by the number length until 2054, when we will experience Y2K revival. Alas, there is also a common practice that immigrants born before 1964 get assigned a 10-digit birth number.
c++ multiple-inheritance extensibility
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have yet another question about multiple inheritance design which has an answer i.e. here (but focused on footprint) or here (too vague), but most answers I stumbled upon is emphasizing the performance drawbacks. However (as Bjarne Stroustrup claims here) it is a language feature which should be prefered to workarounds. Here is a longer example to ilustrate the question which follows the example:
The Example
In Czech Republic, the birth number (SSN equivalent) is assigned in this format:
YYMMDDXXX, so let's have a class to get the birth date in standard D.M.YYYY:
class Human {
protected:
char output[11];
char input[10];
public:
Human (const char* number) {
strncpy(input, number, 10);
if(!number[10]) throw E_INVALID_NUMBER;
}
static int twoCharsToNum(const char* str) {
if(!isdigit(str[0]) || !isdigit(str[1])) throw E_INVALID_NUMBER;
return (str[0]-'0')*10 +str[1]-'0';
}
const char* getDate() {
sprintf(output, "%d.%d.%d", getDay(), getMonth(), getYear());
return output;
}
// range check omitted here to make code short
virtual int getDay() { return twoCharsToNum(input+4); }
virtual int getMonth() { return twoCharsToNum(input+2); }
virtual int getYear() { return twoCharsToNum(input)+1900; }
};
Three methods are virtual, because females got +50 to their month. So let's inherit Man and Woman classes to get the date properly:
class Man : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
};
class Woman : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
int getMonth() {
int result = twoCharsToNum(input+2)-50;
if(result<0) throw E_INVALID_GENDER;
if(result==0 || result>12) throw E_INVALID_RANGE;
return result;
}
};
Since 1954 the number has 4 digits appendix, not 3 (there is a sad story behind this mentioned at the end of this question). If the library was written in 1944, ten years later somebody can write a Facade to get the birth date correctly for future millenials:
class Human2 : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
virtual int getYear() {
int year = twoCharsToNum(input);
if(year<54 && strlen(number)==10) year+= 2000;
else year+= 1900;
return year;
}
};
class Man2 : public Human2 {
public:
using Human2::Human2;
};
In class Woman2
we need the Woman::getMonth
method, so we need to solve the diamond problem:
class Human2 : virtual public Human { ... };
class Woman : virtual public Human { ... }; // here is the real issue
class Woman2 : public Human2, public Woman {
using Human2::Human2;
using Woman::Woman;
};
The Diamond problem diagram:
Woman2
^ ^
| |
Woman Human2
^ ^
| |
Human
The Question
The issue is that Human
, Man
and Woman
could be in a form of binary library where the client code can not rewrite the inheritance to virtual. So how to properly design extensible library to enable multiple inheritance? Should I make every inheritance in the library scope virtual (since I don't know in advance how it could be extended), or is there any more elegant universal design?
Regarding the performance: isn't this the domain of low-level programming and compiler optimization, shouldn't the design perspective prevail on high level programming? Why compilers don't auto virtualize inheritance like they do in RVO or inline
calls decisions?
The sad story behind the example
In 1954 some technically inspired bureucrat decided that tenth cipher will be added in a way so the number will be divisible by 11. Later the genius figured out that there are numbers which can not be modified this way. So he issued an exception that in these cases the last number will be zero. Later that year an internal directive was issued, that no such exceptions will be allowed. But in the meantime some 1000+ birth numbers were issued which are not divisible by 11, but still legal. Regardless of this mess, the century of the year can be inferred by the number length until 2054, when we will experience Y2K revival. Alas, there is also a common practice that immigrants born before 1964 get assigned a 10-digit birth number.
c++ multiple-inheritance extensibility
The only thing I understood from the question is that Czech republic will likely benefit from revamping their id generation scheme.
– SergeyA
6 hours ago
Sorry for lengthy example and rather irrelevant sad story at the end (which is hopefully not that distracting), but I readed many anwers and didn't find there anything useful regarding the design.
– Jan Turoň
6 hours ago
2
I think "fixing" bugs through inheritance is probably not something that should be designed for if you can avoid it. It is not really the purpose of inheritance and I am pretty sure this is what we are meant to avoid when they tell us to prefer encapsulation over inheritance.
– Galik
6 hours ago
1
I think that this is the sort of case where the existence of an inheritance diamond is a sign that inheritance isn't the correct mechanism. I seem to recall Stroustrup warning against a proliferation of classes in cases where other mechanisms might more simply address the problem. In short, it is okay for a method to contain anif
, and a class to contain abool
.
– Tim Randall
6 hours ago
1
what kind of operations would you like to do with those identifiers? It feels like a single class can have a hold of the latest version, and you could have methods that try to convert to older formats, to work with older APIs, e.g. TryConvertTo1944Form()
– AlexG
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have yet another question about multiple inheritance design which has an answer i.e. here (but focused on footprint) or here (too vague), but most answers I stumbled upon is emphasizing the performance drawbacks. However (as Bjarne Stroustrup claims here) it is a language feature which should be prefered to workarounds. Here is a longer example to ilustrate the question which follows the example:
The Example
In Czech Republic, the birth number (SSN equivalent) is assigned in this format:
YYMMDDXXX, so let's have a class to get the birth date in standard D.M.YYYY:
class Human {
protected:
char output[11];
char input[10];
public:
Human (const char* number) {
strncpy(input, number, 10);
if(!number[10]) throw E_INVALID_NUMBER;
}
static int twoCharsToNum(const char* str) {
if(!isdigit(str[0]) || !isdigit(str[1])) throw E_INVALID_NUMBER;
return (str[0]-'0')*10 +str[1]-'0';
}
const char* getDate() {
sprintf(output, "%d.%d.%d", getDay(), getMonth(), getYear());
return output;
}
// range check omitted here to make code short
virtual int getDay() { return twoCharsToNum(input+4); }
virtual int getMonth() { return twoCharsToNum(input+2); }
virtual int getYear() { return twoCharsToNum(input)+1900; }
};
Three methods are virtual, because females got +50 to their month. So let's inherit Man and Woman classes to get the date properly:
class Man : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
};
class Woman : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
int getMonth() {
int result = twoCharsToNum(input+2)-50;
if(result<0) throw E_INVALID_GENDER;
if(result==0 || result>12) throw E_INVALID_RANGE;
return result;
}
};
Since 1954 the number has 4 digits appendix, not 3 (there is a sad story behind this mentioned at the end of this question). If the library was written in 1944, ten years later somebody can write a Facade to get the birth date correctly for future millenials:
class Human2 : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
virtual int getYear() {
int year = twoCharsToNum(input);
if(year<54 && strlen(number)==10) year+= 2000;
else year+= 1900;
return year;
}
};
class Man2 : public Human2 {
public:
using Human2::Human2;
};
In class Woman2
we need the Woman::getMonth
method, so we need to solve the diamond problem:
class Human2 : virtual public Human { ... };
class Woman : virtual public Human { ... }; // here is the real issue
class Woman2 : public Human2, public Woman {
using Human2::Human2;
using Woman::Woman;
};
The Diamond problem diagram:
Woman2
^ ^
| |
Woman Human2
^ ^
| |
Human
The Question
The issue is that Human
, Man
and Woman
could be in a form of binary library where the client code can not rewrite the inheritance to virtual. So how to properly design extensible library to enable multiple inheritance? Should I make every inheritance in the library scope virtual (since I don't know in advance how it could be extended), or is there any more elegant universal design?
Regarding the performance: isn't this the domain of low-level programming and compiler optimization, shouldn't the design perspective prevail on high level programming? Why compilers don't auto virtualize inheritance like they do in RVO or inline
calls decisions?
The sad story behind the example
In 1954 some technically inspired bureucrat decided that tenth cipher will be added in a way so the number will be divisible by 11. Later the genius figured out that there are numbers which can not be modified this way. So he issued an exception that in these cases the last number will be zero. Later that year an internal directive was issued, that no such exceptions will be allowed. But in the meantime some 1000+ birth numbers were issued which are not divisible by 11, but still legal. Regardless of this mess, the century of the year can be inferred by the number length until 2054, when we will experience Y2K revival. Alas, there is also a common practice that immigrants born before 1964 get assigned a 10-digit birth number.
c++ multiple-inheritance extensibility
I have yet another question about multiple inheritance design which has an answer i.e. here (but focused on footprint) or here (too vague), but most answers I stumbled upon is emphasizing the performance drawbacks. However (as Bjarne Stroustrup claims here) it is a language feature which should be prefered to workarounds. Here is a longer example to ilustrate the question which follows the example:
The Example
In Czech Republic, the birth number (SSN equivalent) is assigned in this format:
YYMMDDXXX, so let's have a class to get the birth date in standard D.M.YYYY:
class Human {
protected:
char output[11];
char input[10];
public:
Human (const char* number) {
strncpy(input, number, 10);
if(!number[10]) throw E_INVALID_NUMBER;
}
static int twoCharsToNum(const char* str) {
if(!isdigit(str[0]) || !isdigit(str[1])) throw E_INVALID_NUMBER;
return (str[0]-'0')*10 +str[1]-'0';
}
const char* getDate() {
sprintf(output, "%d.%d.%d", getDay(), getMonth(), getYear());
return output;
}
// range check omitted here to make code short
virtual int getDay() { return twoCharsToNum(input+4); }
virtual int getMonth() { return twoCharsToNum(input+2); }
virtual int getYear() { return twoCharsToNum(input)+1900; }
};
Three methods are virtual, because females got +50 to their month. So let's inherit Man and Woman classes to get the date properly:
class Man : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
};
class Woman : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
int getMonth() {
int result = twoCharsToNum(input+2)-50;
if(result<0) throw E_INVALID_GENDER;
if(result==0 || result>12) throw E_INVALID_RANGE;
return result;
}
};
Since 1954 the number has 4 digits appendix, not 3 (there is a sad story behind this mentioned at the end of this question). If the library was written in 1944, ten years later somebody can write a Facade to get the birth date correctly for future millenials:
class Human2 : public Human {
public:
using Human::Human;
virtual int getYear() {
int year = twoCharsToNum(input);
if(year<54 && strlen(number)==10) year+= 2000;
else year+= 1900;
return year;
}
};
class Man2 : public Human2 {
public:
using Human2::Human2;
};
In class Woman2
we need the Woman::getMonth
method, so we need to solve the diamond problem:
class Human2 : virtual public Human { ... };
class Woman : virtual public Human { ... }; // here is the real issue
class Woman2 : public Human2, public Woman {
using Human2::Human2;
using Woman::Woman;
};
The Diamond problem diagram:
Woman2
^ ^
| |
Woman Human2
^ ^
| |
Human
The Question
The issue is that Human
, Man
and Woman
could be in a form of binary library where the client code can not rewrite the inheritance to virtual. So how to properly design extensible library to enable multiple inheritance? Should I make every inheritance in the library scope virtual (since I don't know in advance how it could be extended), or is there any more elegant universal design?
Regarding the performance: isn't this the domain of low-level programming and compiler optimization, shouldn't the design perspective prevail on high level programming? Why compilers don't auto virtualize inheritance like they do in RVO or inline
calls decisions?
The sad story behind the example
In 1954 some technically inspired bureucrat decided that tenth cipher will be added in a way so the number will be divisible by 11. Later the genius figured out that there are numbers which can not be modified this way. So he issued an exception that in these cases the last number will be zero. Later that year an internal directive was issued, that no such exceptions will be allowed. But in the meantime some 1000+ birth numbers were issued which are not divisible by 11, but still legal. Regardless of this mess, the century of the year can be inferred by the number length until 2054, when we will experience Y2K revival. Alas, there is also a common practice that immigrants born before 1964 get assigned a 10-digit birth number.
c++ multiple-inheritance extensibility
c++ multiple-inheritance extensibility
edited 6 hours ago
asked 6 hours ago
Jan Turoň
17.7k1579127
17.7k1579127
The only thing I understood from the question is that Czech republic will likely benefit from revamping their id generation scheme.
– SergeyA
6 hours ago
Sorry for lengthy example and rather irrelevant sad story at the end (which is hopefully not that distracting), but I readed many anwers and didn't find there anything useful regarding the design.
– Jan Turoň
6 hours ago
2
I think "fixing" bugs through inheritance is probably not something that should be designed for if you can avoid it. It is not really the purpose of inheritance and I am pretty sure this is what we are meant to avoid when they tell us to prefer encapsulation over inheritance.
– Galik
6 hours ago
1
I think that this is the sort of case where the existence of an inheritance diamond is a sign that inheritance isn't the correct mechanism. I seem to recall Stroustrup warning against a proliferation of classes in cases where other mechanisms might more simply address the problem. In short, it is okay for a method to contain anif
, and a class to contain abool
.
– Tim Randall
6 hours ago
1
what kind of operations would you like to do with those identifiers? It feels like a single class can have a hold of the latest version, and you could have methods that try to convert to older formats, to work with older APIs, e.g. TryConvertTo1944Form()
– AlexG
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
The only thing I understood from the question is that Czech republic will likely benefit from revamping their id generation scheme.
– SergeyA
6 hours ago
Sorry for lengthy example and rather irrelevant sad story at the end (which is hopefully not that distracting), but I readed many anwers and didn't find there anything useful regarding the design.
– Jan Turoň
6 hours ago
2
I think "fixing" bugs through inheritance is probably not something that should be designed for if you can avoid it. It is not really the purpose of inheritance and I am pretty sure this is what we are meant to avoid when they tell us to prefer encapsulation over inheritance.
– Galik
6 hours ago
1
I think that this is the sort of case where the existence of an inheritance diamond is a sign that inheritance isn't the correct mechanism. I seem to recall Stroustrup warning against a proliferation of classes in cases where other mechanisms might more simply address the problem. In short, it is okay for a method to contain anif
, and a class to contain abool
.
– Tim Randall
6 hours ago
1
what kind of operations would you like to do with those identifiers? It feels like a single class can have a hold of the latest version, and you could have methods that try to convert to older formats, to work with older APIs, e.g. TryConvertTo1944Form()
– AlexG
5 hours ago
The only thing I understood from the question is that Czech republic will likely benefit from revamping their id generation scheme.
– SergeyA
6 hours ago
The only thing I understood from the question is that Czech republic will likely benefit from revamping their id generation scheme.
– SergeyA
6 hours ago
Sorry for lengthy example and rather irrelevant sad story at the end (which is hopefully not that distracting), but I readed many anwers and didn't find there anything useful regarding the design.
– Jan Turoň
6 hours ago
Sorry for lengthy example and rather irrelevant sad story at the end (which is hopefully not that distracting), but I readed many anwers and didn't find there anything useful regarding the design.
– Jan Turoň
6 hours ago
2
2
I think "fixing" bugs through inheritance is probably not something that should be designed for if you can avoid it. It is not really the purpose of inheritance and I am pretty sure this is what we are meant to avoid when they tell us to prefer encapsulation over inheritance.
– Galik
6 hours ago
I think "fixing" bugs through inheritance is probably not something that should be designed for if you can avoid it. It is not really the purpose of inheritance and I am pretty sure this is what we are meant to avoid when they tell us to prefer encapsulation over inheritance.
– Galik
6 hours ago
1
1
I think that this is the sort of case where the existence of an inheritance diamond is a sign that inheritance isn't the correct mechanism. I seem to recall Stroustrup warning against a proliferation of classes in cases where other mechanisms might more simply address the problem. In short, it is okay for a method to contain an
if
, and a class to contain a bool
.– Tim Randall
6 hours ago
I think that this is the sort of case where the existence of an inheritance diamond is a sign that inheritance isn't the correct mechanism. I seem to recall Stroustrup warning against a proliferation of classes in cases where other mechanisms might more simply address the problem. In short, it is okay for a method to contain an
if
, and a class to contain a bool
.– Tim Randall
6 hours ago
1
1
what kind of operations would you like to do with those identifiers? It feels like a single class can have a hold of the latest version, and you could have methods that try to convert to older formats, to work with older APIs, e.g. TryConvertTo1944Form()
– AlexG
5 hours ago
what kind of operations would you like to do with those identifiers? It feels like a single class can have a hold of the latest version, and you could have methods that try to convert to older formats, to work with older APIs, e.g. TryConvertTo1944Form()
– AlexG
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
If you can not edit the original lib, you can try to solve it by a "mixin", i.e. new facade class is parametrized by their own base class Man
or Woman
.
For example:
#include <iostream>
#include <system_error>
#include <cstring>
#include <memory>
#include <type_traits>
class Human {
protected:
char output[11];
char input[10];
public:
Human (const char* number) {
memcpy(input, number, 10);
if(!number[10])
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
}
static int twoCharsToNum(const char* str) {
if(!isdigit(str[0]) || !isdigit(str[1]))
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return (str[0]-'0')*10 +str[1]-'0';
}
const char* getDate() {
sprintf(output, "%d.%d.%d", getDay(), getMonth(), getYear());
return output;
}
// range check omitted here to make code short
virtual int getDay() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+4);
}
virtual int getMonth() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+2);
}
virtual int getYear() {
return twoCharsToNum(input)+1900;
}
};
class Man:public Human {
public:
Man(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
};
class Woman : public Human {
public:
Woman(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
virtual int getMonth() override {
int result = Human::twoCharsToNum(input+2)-50;
if(result<0)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
if(result==0 || result>12)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return result;
}
};
template<class GenderType>
class Human_Century21:public GenderType {
public:
explicit Human_Century21(const char* number):
GenderType(number)
{
// or use std::enabled_if etc
static_assert( std::is_base_of<Human,GenderType>::value, "Gender type must inherit Human" );
}
virtual int getYear() override {
int year = Human::twoCharsToNum(this->input);
if(year<54 && std::strlen(this->input) == 10 )
year += 2000;
else
year += 1900;
return year;
}
};
int main ()
{
auto man = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Man> >( "530101123" );
std::cout << "Man: [ year: " << man->getYear() << ", month:" << man->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
auto woman = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Woman> >( "54510112345" );
std::cout << "Woman: [ year: " << woman->getYear() << ", month:" << woman->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
Man: [ year: 1953, month:1 ]
Woman: [ year: 1954, month:1 ]
Aniway, you'd better redisign all those classes, IMHO the best option - store date as an integer or std::chrono type(s) and gender as an enumeration field. Provide an additional factory methods to parse date format string, and iject dependecies into only human class.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
If you can not edit the original lib, you can try to solve it by a "mixin", i.e. new facade class is parametrized by their own base class Man
or Woman
.
For example:
#include <iostream>
#include <system_error>
#include <cstring>
#include <memory>
#include <type_traits>
class Human {
protected:
char output[11];
char input[10];
public:
Human (const char* number) {
memcpy(input, number, 10);
if(!number[10])
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
}
static int twoCharsToNum(const char* str) {
if(!isdigit(str[0]) || !isdigit(str[1]))
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return (str[0]-'0')*10 +str[1]-'0';
}
const char* getDate() {
sprintf(output, "%d.%d.%d", getDay(), getMonth(), getYear());
return output;
}
// range check omitted here to make code short
virtual int getDay() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+4);
}
virtual int getMonth() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+2);
}
virtual int getYear() {
return twoCharsToNum(input)+1900;
}
};
class Man:public Human {
public:
Man(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
};
class Woman : public Human {
public:
Woman(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
virtual int getMonth() override {
int result = Human::twoCharsToNum(input+2)-50;
if(result<0)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
if(result==0 || result>12)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return result;
}
};
template<class GenderType>
class Human_Century21:public GenderType {
public:
explicit Human_Century21(const char* number):
GenderType(number)
{
// or use std::enabled_if etc
static_assert( std::is_base_of<Human,GenderType>::value, "Gender type must inherit Human" );
}
virtual int getYear() override {
int year = Human::twoCharsToNum(this->input);
if(year<54 && std::strlen(this->input) == 10 )
year += 2000;
else
year += 1900;
return year;
}
};
int main ()
{
auto man = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Man> >( "530101123" );
std::cout << "Man: [ year: " << man->getYear() << ", month:" << man->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
auto woman = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Woman> >( "54510112345" );
std::cout << "Woman: [ year: " << woman->getYear() << ", month:" << woman->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
Man: [ year: 1953, month:1 ]
Woman: [ year: 1954, month:1 ]
Aniway, you'd better redisign all those classes, IMHO the best option - store date as an integer or std::chrono type(s) and gender as an enumeration field. Provide an additional factory methods to parse date format string, and iject dependecies into only human class.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If you can not edit the original lib, you can try to solve it by a "mixin", i.e. new facade class is parametrized by their own base class Man
or Woman
.
For example:
#include <iostream>
#include <system_error>
#include <cstring>
#include <memory>
#include <type_traits>
class Human {
protected:
char output[11];
char input[10];
public:
Human (const char* number) {
memcpy(input, number, 10);
if(!number[10])
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
}
static int twoCharsToNum(const char* str) {
if(!isdigit(str[0]) || !isdigit(str[1]))
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return (str[0]-'0')*10 +str[1]-'0';
}
const char* getDate() {
sprintf(output, "%d.%d.%d", getDay(), getMonth(), getYear());
return output;
}
// range check omitted here to make code short
virtual int getDay() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+4);
}
virtual int getMonth() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+2);
}
virtual int getYear() {
return twoCharsToNum(input)+1900;
}
};
class Man:public Human {
public:
Man(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
};
class Woman : public Human {
public:
Woman(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
virtual int getMonth() override {
int result = Human::twoCharsToNum(input+2)-50;
if(result<0)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
if(result==0 || result>12)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return result;
}
};
template<class GenderType>
class Human_Century21:public GenderType {
public:
explicit Human_Century21(const char* number):
GenderType(number)
{
// or use std::enabled_if etc
static_assert( std::is_base_of<Human,GenderType>::value, "Gender type must inherit Human" );
}
virtual int getYear() override {
int year = Human::twoCharsToNum(this->input);
if(year<54 && std::strlen(this->input) == 10 )
year += 2000;
else
year += 1900;
return year;
}
};
int main ()
{
auto man = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Man> >( "530101123" );
std::cout << "Man: [ year: " << man->getYear() << ", month:" << man->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
auto woman = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Woman> >( "54510112345" );
std::cout << "Woman: [ year: " << woman->getYear() << ", month:" << woman->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
Man: [ year: 1953, month:1 ]
Woman: [ year: 1954, month:1 ]
Aniway, you'd better redisign all those classes, IMHO the best option - store date as an integer or std::chrono type(s) and gender as an enumeration field. Provide an additional factory methods to parse date format string, and iject dependecies into only human class.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
If you can not edit the original lib, you can try to solve it by a "mixin", i.e. new facade class is parametrized by their own base class Man
or Woman
.
For example:
#include <iostream>
#include <system_error>
#include <cstring>
#include <memory>
#include <type_traits>
class Human {
protected:
char output[11];
char input[10];
public:
Human (const char* number) {
memcpy(input, number, 10);
if(!number[10])
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
}
static int twoCharsToNum(const char* str) {
if(!isdigit(str[0]) || !isdigit(str[1]))
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return (str[0]-'0')*10 +str[1]-'0';
}
const char* getDate() {
sprintf(output, "%d.%d.%d", getDay(), getMonth(), getYear());
return output;
}
// range check omitted here to make code short
virtual int getDay() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+4);
}
virtual int getMonth() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+2);
}
virtual int getYear() {
return twoCharsToNum(input)+1900;
}
};
class Man:public Human {
public:
Man(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
};
class Woman : public Human {
public:
Woman(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
virtual int getMonth() override {
int result = Human::twoCharsToNum(input+2)-50;
if(result<0)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
if(result==0 || result>12)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return result;
}
};
template<class GenderType>
class Human_Century21:public GenderType {
public:
explicit Human_Century21(const char* number):
GenderType(number)
{
// or use std::enabled_if etc
static_assert( std::is_base_of<Human,GenderType>::value, "Gender type must inherit Human" );
}
virtual int getYear() override {
int year = Human::twoCharsToNum(this->input);
if(year<54 && std::strlen(this->input) == 10 )
year += 2000;
else
year += 1900;
return year;
}
};
int main ()
{
auto man = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Man> >( "530101123" );
std::cout << "Man: [ year: " << man->getYear() << ", month:" << man->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
auto woman = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Woman> >( "54510112345" );
std::cout << "Woman: [ year: " << woman->getYear() << ", month:" << woman->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
Man: [ year: 1953, month:1 ]
Woman: [ year: 1954, month:1 ]
Aniway, you'd better redisign all those classes, IMHO the best option - store date as an integer or std::chrono type(s) and gender as an enumeration field. Provide an additional factory methods to parse date format string, and iject dependecies into only human class.
If you can not edit the original lib, you can try to solve it by a "mixin", i.e. new facade class is parametrized by their own base class Man
or Woman
.
For example:
#include <iostream>
#include <system_error>
#include <cstring>
#include <memory>
#include <type_traits>
class Human {
protected:
char output[11];
char input[10];
public:
Human (const char* number) {
memcpy(input, number, 10);
if(!number[10])
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
}
static int twoCharsToNum(const char* str) {
if(!isdigit(str[0]) || !isdigit(str[1]))
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return (str[0]-'0')*10 +str[1]-'0';
}
const char* getDate() {
sprintf(output, "%d.%d.%d", getDay(), getMonth(), getYear());
return output;
}
// range check omitted here to make code short
virtual int getDay() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+4);
}
virtual int getMonth() {
return twoCharsToNum(input+2);
}
virtual int getYear() {
return twoCharsToNum(input)+1900;
}
};
class Man:public Human {
public:
Man(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
};
class Woman : public Human {
public:
Woman(const char* number):
Human(number)
{}
virtual int getMonth() override {
int result = Human::twoCharsToNum(input+2)-50;
if(result<0)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
if(result==0 || result>12)
throw std::system_error( std::make_error_code( std::errc::invalid_argument ) );
return result;
}
};
template<class GenderType>
class Human_Century21:public GenderType {
public:
explicit Human_Century21(const char* number):
GenderType(number)
{
// or use std::enabled_if etc
static_assert( std::is_base_of<Human,GenderType>::value, "Gender type must inherit Human" );
}
virtual int getYear() override {
int year = Human::twoCharsToNum(this->input);
if(year<54 && std::strlen(this->input) == 10 )
year += 2000;
else
year += 1900;
return year;
}
};
int main ()
{
auto man = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Man> >( "530101123" );
std::cout << "Man: [ year: " << man->getYear() << ", month:" << man->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
auto woman = std::make_shared< Human_Century21<Woman> >( "54510112345" );
std::cout << "Woman: [ year: " << woman->getYear() << ", month:" << woman->getMonth() << " ]" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
Man: [ year: 1953, month:1 ]
Woman: [ year: 1954, month:1 ]
Aniway, you'd better redisign all those classes, IMHO the best option - store date as an integer or std::chrono type(s) and gender as an enumeration field. Provide an additional factory methods to parse date format string, and iject dependecies into only human class.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Victor Gubin
1,153111
1,153111
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53400751%2fhow-to-design-extensible-multiple-inheritance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
The only thing I understood from the question is that Czech republic will likely benefit from revamping their id generation scheme.
– SergeyA
6 hours ago
Sorry for lengthy example and rather irrelevant sad story at the end (which is hopefully not that distracting), but I readed many anwers and didn't find there anything useful regarding the design.
– Jan Turoň
6 hours ago
2
I think "fixing" bugs through inheritance is probably not something that should be designed for if you can avoid it. It is not really the purpose of inheritance and I am pretty sure this is what we are meant to avoid when they tell us to prefer encapsulation over inheritance.
– Galik
6 hours ago
1
I think that this is the sort of case where the existence of an inheritance diamond is a sign that inheritance isn't the correct mechanism. I seem to recall Stroustrup warning against a proliferation of classes in cases where other mechanisms might more simply address the problem. In short, it is okay for a method to contain an
if
, and a class to contain abool
.– Tim Randall
6 hours ago
1
what kind of operations would you like to do with those identifiers? It feels like a single class can have a hold of the latest version, and you could have methods that try to convert to older formats, to work with older APIs, e.g. TryConvertTo1944Form()
– AlexG
5 hours ago