Converting Derived** to Base** and Derived* to Base*

Question

Ok, I was reading through this entry in the FQA dealing about the issue of converting a Derived** to a Base** and why it is forbidden, and I got that the problem is that you could assign to a Base* something which is not a Derived*, so we forbid that.

So far, so good.

But, if we apply that principle in depth, why aren't we forbidding such example?

void nasty_function(Base *b)
{
  *b = Base(3); // Ouch!
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
  Derived *d = new Derived;
  nasty_function(d); // Ooops, now *d points to a Base. What would happen now?
}

I agree that nasty_function does something idiotic, so we could say that letting that kind of conversion is fine because we enable interesting designs, but we could say that also for the double-indirection: you got a Base **, but you shouldn't assign anything to its deference because you really don't know where that Base ** comes, just like the Base *.

So, the question: what's special about that extra-level-of-indirection? Maybe the point is that, with just one level of indirection, we could play with virtual operator= to avoid that, while the same machinery isn't available on plain pointers?

Answer 1

nasty_function(d); // Ooops, now *d points to a Base. What would happen now?

No, it doesn't. It points to a Derived. The function simply changed the Base subobject in the existing Derived object. Consider:

#include <cassert>

struct Base {
    Base(int x) : x(x) {}
    int x;
};
struct Derived : Base {
     Derived(int x, int y) : Base(x), y(y) {}
     int y;
};

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
  Derived d(1,2); // seriously, WTF is it with people and new?
                  // You don't need new to use pointers
                  // Stop it already
  assert(d.x == 1);
  assert(d.y == 2);
  nasty_function(&d);
  assert(d.x == 3);
  assert(d.y == 2);
}

d doesn't magically become a Base, does it? It's still a Derived, but the Base part of it changed.

---

In pictures :)

This is what Base and Derived objects look like:

When we have two levels of indirection it doesn't work because the things being assigned are pointers:

Notice how neither of the Base or Derived objects in question are attempted to be changed: only the middle pointer is.

But, when you only have one level of indirection, the code modifies the object itself, in a way that the object allows (it can forbid it by making private, hiding, or deleting the assignment operator from a Base):

Notice how no pointers are changed here. This is just like any other operation that changes part of an object, like d.y = 42;.