The Problem
Consider the following class hierarchy.
class Animal { public: virtual void eat; }; class Mammal : public Animal { public: virtual void breathe; }; class WingedAnimal : public Animal { public: virtual void flap; }; // A bat is a winged mammal class Bat : public Mammal, public WingedAnimal { }; Bat bat;As declared above, a call to bat.eat
is ambiguous because there are two Animal
(indirect) base classes in Bat
, so any Bat
object has two different Animal
base class subobjects. So an attempt to directly bind a reference to the Animal
subobject of a Bat
object would fail, since the binding is inherently ambiguous:
To disambiguate, one would have to explicitly convert bat
to either base class subobject:
In order to call eat
, the same disambiguation is needed: static_cast
or static_cast
.
In this case, the double inheritance of Animal
is probably unwanted, as we want to model that the relation (Bat
is an Animal
) exists only once; that a Bat
is a Mammal
and is a WingedAnimal
does not imply that it is an Animal
twice: an Animal
base class corresponds to a contract that Bat
implements (the "is a" relationship above really means "implements the requirements of"), and a Bat
only implements the Animal
contract once. The real world meaning of "is a only once" is that Bat
should have only one way of implementing eat
, not two different ways, depending on whether the Mammal
view of the Bat
is eating, or the WingedAnimal
view of the Bat
. (In the first code example we see that eat
is not overridden in either Mammal
or WingedAnimal
, so the two Animal
subobjects will actually behave the same, but this is just a degenerate case, and that does not make a difference from the C++ point of view.)
This situation is sometimes referred to as diamond inheritance (see Diamond problem) because the inheritance diagram is in the shape of a diamond. Virtual inheritance can help to solve this problem.
Read more about this topic: Virtual Inheritance
Famous quotes containing the word problem:
“The problem of induction is not a problem of demonstration but a problem of defining the difference between valid and invalid
predictions.”
—Nelson Goodman (1906)
“In the nineteenth century the problem was that God is dead; in the twentieth century the problem is that man is dead.”
—Erich Fromm (19001980)