We have a restriction that a class cannot act as a base-class for more than 7 classes. Is there a way to enforce the above rule at compile-time?
I am aware of Andrew Koenig's Usable_Lock technique to prevent a class from being inherited but it would fail only when we try to instantiate the class. Can this not be done when deriving itself?
The base-class is allowed to know who are its children. So i guess we can declare a combination of friend classes and encapsulate them to enforce this rule. Suppose we try something like this
class AA {
friend class BB;
private:
AA() {}
~AA() {}
};
class BB : public AA {
};
class CC : public AA
{};
The derivation of class CC would generate a compiler warning abt inaccessible dtor. We can then flag such warnings as errors using compiler tweaks (like flag all warnings as errors), but i would not like to rely on such techniques.
Another way, but to me looks rather clumsy is:-
class B;
class InheritanceRule{
class A {
public:
A() {}
~A() {}
};
friend class B;
};
class B {
public:
class C : public InheritanceRule::A
{};
};
class D : public InheritanceRule::A{};
The derivation of class D will be flagged as a compiler error, meaning all the classes to be derived should be derived inside class B. This will allow atleast an inspection of the number of classes derived from class A but would not prevent anyone from adding more.
Anyone here who has a way of doing it ? Better still if the base-class need not know who are its children.
NOTE: The class which acts as a base-class can itself be instantiated (it is not abstract).
Thanks in advance,
EDIT-1: As per Comment from jon.h, a slight modification
// create a template class without a body, so all uses of it fail
template < typename D>
class AllowedInheritance;
class Derived; // forward declaration
// but allow Derived by explicit specialization
template<>
class AllowedInheritance< Derived> {};
template<class T>
class Base : private AllowedInheritance<T> {};
// privately inherit Derived from that explicit specialization
class Derived : public Base<Derived> {};
// Do the same with class Fail Error
// it has no explicit specialization, so it causes a compiler error
class Fail : public Base<Fail> {}; // this is error
int main()
{
Derived d;
return 0;
}
Sorry, I don't know how to enforce any such limit using the compiler.
Personally I wouldn't bother trying to force the rule into the code itself - you are cluttering the code with stuff that has nothing to do with what the code is doing - it's not clean code.
Rather than jumping through hoops, I'd try to get that rule relaxed. Instead it should be a guideline that could be broken if necessary and in agreement with others in the team.
Of course, I lack the knowledge of exactly what you're doing so the rule could be appropriate, but in general it probably isn't.
Any programming "rule" that says you must never do x or you must always do y is almost always wrong! Notice the word "almost" in there.
Sometimes you might need more than 7 derived classes - what do you do then? Jump through more hoops. Also, why 7? Why not 6 or 8? It's just so arbitrary - another sign of a poor rule.
If you must do it, as JP says, static analysis is probably the better way.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With