Is it ok to dynamic cast "this" as a return value?

Question

This is more of a design question.

I have a template class, and I want to add extra methods to it depending on the template type. To practice the DRY principle, I have come up with this pattern (definitions intentionally omitted):

template <class T>
class BaseVector: public boost::array<T, 3>
{
protected:
    BaseVector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z);
public:
    bool operator == (const Vector<T> &other) const;
    Vector<T> operator + (const Vector<T> &other) const;    
    Vector<T> operator - (const Vector<T> &other) const;
    Vector<T> &operator += (const Vector<T> &other)
    {
        (*this)[0] += other[0];
        (*this)[1] += other[1];
        (*this)[2] += other[2];

        return *dynamic_cast<Vector<T> * const>(this);
    }

    virtual ~BaseVector<T>()
    {
    }
}

template <class T>
class Vector : public BaseVector<T>
{
public:
    Vector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z)
    : BaseVector<T>(x, y, z)
    {
    }
};

template <>
class Vector<double> : public BaseVector<double>
{
public:
    Vector<double>(const double x, const double y, const double z);
    Vector<double>(const Vector<int> &other);
    double norm() const;
};

I intend BaseVector to be nothing more than an implementation detail. This works, but I am concerned about operator+=. My question is: is the dynamic cast of the this pointer a code smell? Is there a better way to achieve what I am trying to do (avoid code duplication, and unnecessary casts in the user code)? Or am I safe since, the BaseVector constructor is private?

EDIT:

Sorry, yes I have virtual dtor, but I forgot to paste it, the code doesn't compile without it.

Answer 1

I would recommend that you consider an alternative approach (note that in the below examples, I have simplified the code to the bare minimum required to demonstrate the alternative approaches).

First, consider the Curiously Recurring Template Parameter (CRTP):

template <typename T, typename DerivedVector>
struct BaseVector
{
    DerivedVector& operator+=(DerivedVector const& other)
    {
        return static_cast<DerivedVector&>(*this);
    }
};

template <typename T>
struct Vector : BaseVector<T, Vector<T>>
{
};

Since you always know what the derived type is, a static_cast is sufficient. If Vector<T> is the only class whose base is BaseVector<T> and if you are guaranteed that the T parameters are always the same, then strictly speaking, the CRTP parameter is unnecessary: you always know what the derived type is, so a static_cast is safe.

Alternatively, consider that operators need not be member functions, so you could declare non-member operator function templates:

template <typename T, typename DerivedVector>
struct BaseVector
{
};

template <typename T>
struct Vector : BaseVector<T, Vector<T>>
{
};

template <typename T>
Vector<T>& operator+=(Vector<T>& self, Vector<T> const& other)
{
    return self;
}

While the latter is preferable for operators, it won't work for ordinary, nonoperator member functions, so the CRTP approach would be preferable for those.