• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
george7378

Inheritance question

11 posts in this topic

Hi!

 

I'm writing a program with a base class and multiple derived classes which are stored in a vector. I think it's easiest if I just post a barebones version to demonstrate my problem:

#include <iostream>

#include <vector>



using namespace std;



class Base

{

public:



    Base(){};



    virtual void identify() const

    {

        cout << "Base" << endl;

    }

};



class Derived1 : public Base

{

public:



    Derived1(){};



    void identify() const

    {

        cout << "Derived1" << endl;

    }

};



class Derived2 : public Base

{

public:



    Derived2(){};



    void identify() const

    {

        cout << "Derived2" << endl;

    }

};



int main()

{

    //Static

    vector <Base> vec;

    vec.push_back(Derived1());

    vec.push_back(Derived2());



    vec[0].identify();

    vec[1].identify();



    //Dynamic

    vector <Base *> vecdyn;

    vecdyn.push_back(new Derived1());

    vecdyn.push_back(new Derived2());



    vecdyn[0]->identify();

    vecdyn[1]->identify();



    while (!vecdyn.empty())

    {

        Base *element = vecdyn.back();

        vecdyn.pop_back();

        delete element;

    }



    cin.get();

    return 0;

}

Running the above program gives me this result:

 

Base

Base

Derived1

Derived2

 

...so the Derived1 and Derived2 objects stored in the static vector identify themselves as Base objects while the ones stored in the dynamic vector identify themselves as their respective derive classes. Why are they doing this, and is there a way to make the static objects identify themselves as derived classes rather than base ones?

 

Much appreciated smile.png

Edited by george7378
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Also note that you don't have a virtual destructor.  A destructor should either be public and virtual (meaning you can use it as a base class) or protected and non-virtual (meaning you cannot inherit from it.) This has the same basic problem, if you don't do the destructor properly the object can be incompletely destroyed.

 

I know this is the correct thing to do, and I am in no way advocating NOT making it virtual, but in this case does it actually matter in practice?

i.e. Derived has no extra memory overhead, so the allocated space for Base is released? Just a question.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also note that you don't have a virtual destructor.  A destructor should either be public and virtual (meaning you can use it as a base class) or protected and non-virtual (meaning you cannot inherit from it.) This has the same basic problem, if you don't do the destructor properly the object can be incompletely destroyed.

 
I know this is the correct thing to do, and I am in no way advocating NOT making it virtual, but in this case does it actually matter in practice?
i.e. Derived has no extra memory overhead, so the allocated space for Base is released? Just a question.


The fact that Derived has nothing extra to do in the destructor is a detail that Base shouldn't be aware of. In particular, if that changes in the future, only the code in Derived should have to change.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is the correct thing to do, and I am in no way advocating NOT making it virtual, but in this case does it actually matter in practice?
i.e. Derived has no extra memory overhead, so the allocated space for Base is released? Just a question.


The fact that Derived has nothing extra to do in the destructor is a detail that Base shouldn't be aware of. In particular, if that changes in the future, only the code in Derived should have to change.


Yep, that's why I said making it virtual was the Right Thing To Do(tm).

My question was whether, in this particular instance, a non-virtual destructor would break the code, i.e. is the behaviour undefined?
It was an academic question.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the responses, so am I right in thinking that a virtual destructor should be something like this in the base class:

virtual ~Base(){};
...although I shouldnt need a destructor unless I allocate dynamic memory within the class, right?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you call delete on the base pointer, the destructor needs to be virtual. As far as I'm aware, there is no special rule for if the derived destructor is trivial, so you still need to call the matching destructor of the type that the object was constructed as. Now as frob says, if you don't call delete or explicitly invoke the base constructor, then having a virtual destructor is not required.

Take note: in the vector<Base> example, the destructor does not need to be virtual, because you never destroy the derived class through the base pointer. The temporary derived object has its destructor called after the base object is built without using virtual dispatch. Edited by King Mir
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



virtual ~Base(){};
...although I shouldnt need a destructor unless I allocate dynamic memory within the class, right?


No. A simplified real world example I once encountered was

class Base { };

class Derived : public Base { std::string m_myString; }

// ...
Base* p = new Derived;
// ...
delete p;
The std::string inside Derived never gets destroyed. If it allocated memory (which it likely did) then that memory is not freed.

Even beyond indirect memory allocation you can get problems. File handles might not get closed. Other scarce system resources (like sockets) might remain open until your application terminates.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0