1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
|
Let's investigate closer why an tt(AirAuto) introduces i(ambiguity), when
derived from tt(Auto) and tt(Air).
itemization(
it() An tt(AirAuto) is an tt(Auto), hence a tt(Land), and hence a
tt(Vehicle).
it() However, an tt(AirAuto) is also an tt(Air), and hence a tt(Vehicle).
)
The duplication of tt(Vehicle) data is further illustrated in
fig(ambiguity).
figure(polymorphism/ambiguity)
(Duplication of a base class in multiple derivation.)
(ambiguity)
The internal organization of an tt(AirAuto) is shown in
fig(InternalOrganization)
figure(polymorphism/internal)
(Internal organization of an tt(AirAuto) object.)
(InternalOrganization)
The bf(C++) compiler detects the ambiguity in an tt(AirAuto) object,
and will therefore not compile statements like:
verb(
AirAuto jBond;
cout << jBond.mass() << '\n';
)
Which member function tt(mass) to call cannot be determined by the
compiler but the programmer has two possibilities to resolve the ambiguity for
the compiler:
itemization(
it() First, the function call where the ambiguity originates can be
modified. The ambiguity is resolved using the i(scope resolution operator):
verb(
// let's hope that the mass is kept in the Auto
// part of the object..
cout << jBond.Auto::mass() << '\n';
)
The scope resolution operator and the class name are put right before
the name of the member function.
it() Second, a dedicated function tt(mass) could be created for
the class tt(AirAuto):
verb(
int AirAuto::mass() const
{
return Auto::mass();
}
)
)
The second possibility is preferred as it does not require the compiler to
flag an error; nor does it require the programmer using the class
tt(AirAuto) to take special precautions.
However, there exists a more elegant solution, discussed in the next
section.
|
