What is multiple re-inheritance?

Question

I refer to the following as “multiple re-inheritance”:

• inheriting a class once directly and one or more times indirectly by inheriting one or more of its descendants
• inheriting a class indirectly two or more times by inheriting two or more of its descendants

I want to know if it exists and how to unambiguously access embedded subobjects.

1.) [Professional C++, 2^nd ed.]^† states a compilable program can't have a class that directly inherits both its immediate parent and said parent's parent class. Is it true?

Given a GrandParent and Parent, which extends GrandParent, VC12 and g++ allows a GrandChild to directly inherit from both Parent and GrandParent. In VC12 and g++, it’s possible to define these classes as follows:

GrandParent declares an int num data member. Parent declares its own num in addition to inheriting GrandParent's num. GrandChild declares its own num in addition to inheriting Parent's and GrandParent's nums.

VC12 seems to allow unambiguous member access across the board, but g++ only allows it for some cases.

#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;

struct GrandParent { int num; };
struct Parent : GrandParent { int num; };
struct GrandChild : GrandParent, Parent { int num; };

int main()
{
    GrandChild gc;
    gc.num = 2;
    gc.Parent::num = 1;
    gc.Parent::GrandParent::num = 0; // g++ error: ‘GrandParent’ is an ambiguous base of ‘GrandChild’
    gc.GrandParent::num = 5;         // g++ error: ‘GrandParent’ is an ambiguous base of ‘GrandChild’

                                                 // --VC12 output; g++ output--
    cout << gc.num << endl;                      // 2 ; 2
    cout << gc.Parent::num << endl;              // 1 ; 1
    cout << gc.Parent::GrandParent::num << endl; // 0 ; N/A due to above error
    cout << gc.GrandParent::num << endl;         // 5 ; N/A due to above error
}

2.) Why is (a) gc.Parent::GrandParent::num ambiguous in g++ when (b) gc.Parent::num isn't? (a) uniquely describes its location on the inheritance tree. gc only has 1 Parent subobject, which only has 1 GrandParent subobject, which only has 1 num. For (b), gc has one Parent, which has its own num but also a GrandParent subobject with another num.

3.) For gc.GrandParent::num, it seems VC12 looks into gc's immediate GrandParent base subobject for the latter's num. I’m guessing the reason it is unambiguous is that it’s a name lookup qualified by gc, so the entity to the right of . is looked for first in gc's scope, and the most immediate GrandParent to gc's scope is the directly inherited one, not the indirectly inherited one via Parent. Am I wrong?

4.) Why is gc.GrandParent::num ambiguous to g++ when gc.Parent::num isn't? If one is ambiguous, then shouldn't both be equally ambiguous? For the prior, gc has two GrandParents; and for the latter, Parent has 2 nums.

---

^†Gregoire, Marc R. et al. Professional C++, 2^nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Pubishing, 2011. p. 241. Print.

Answer 1

The common term for this is the diamond pattern (or diamond problem).

It is not an error per se, but as noted in the comments here, any attempt to access a direct base that is reduplicated elsewhere in the hierarchy will result in an ambiguity error.

One workaround would be to make the base indirect. The new inheriting constructors feature in C++11 allows perfect wrappers:

template< typename base, typename tag >
struct disambiguated_base : base
    { using base::base; };

Given an unused tag type, this generates a new class derived from, and functionally identical to, the given base. The tag type may be an incomplete class denoted by an elaborated-type-specifier:

struct GrandChild : Parent,
    disambiguated_base< GrandParent, class grandchild_grandparent_tag > {

    typedef disambiguated_base< GrandParent, grandchild_grandparent_tag >
        my_direct_grandparent;

    int num;
};

Now GrandChild can use my_direct_grandparent:: to disambiguate member accesses.