Asked  7 Months ago    Answers:  5   Viewed   28 times

What are differences between declaring a method in a base type "virtual" and then overriding it in a child type using the "override" keyword as opposed to simply using the "new" keyword when declaring the matching method in the child type?



The "new" keyword doesn't override, it signifies a new method that has nothing to do with the base class method.

public class Foo
     public bool DoSomething() { return false; }

public class Bar : Foo
     public new bool DoSomething() { return true; }

public class Test
    public static void Main ()
        Foo test = new Bar ();
        Console.WriteLine (test.DoSomething ());

This prints false, if you used override it would have printed true.

(Base code taken from Joseph Daigle)

So, if you are doing real polymorphism you SHOULD ALWAYS OVERRIDE. The only place where you need to use "new" is when the method is not related in any way to the base class version.

Tuesday, June 1, 2021
answered 7 Months ago

Overriding basically supports late binding. Therefore, it's decided at run time which method will be called. It is for non-static methods.

Hiding is for all other members (static methods, instance members, static members). It is based on the early binding. More clearly, the method or member to be called or used is decided during compile time.

In your example, the first call, Animal.testClassMethod() is a call to a static method, hence it is pretty sure which method is going to be called.

In the second call, myAnimal.testInstanceMethod(), you call a non-static method. This is what you call run-time polymorphism. It is not decided until run time which method is to be called.

For further clarification, read Overriding Vs Hiding.

Monday, June 7, 2021
answered 6 Months ago

Personally, I'd more like this:

typedef struct {
  int _public_member;
  /*I know you wont listen, but don't ever touch this member.*/
  int _private_member;
} SomeStructSource;

It's C after all, if people want to screw up, they should be allowed to - no need to hide stuff, except:

If what you need is to keep the ABI/API compatible, there's 2 approaches that's more common from what I've seen.

  • Don't give your clients access to the struct, give them an opaque handle (a void* with a pretty name), provide init/destroy and accessor functions for everything. This makes sure you can change the structure without even recompiling the clients if you're writing a library.

  • provide an opaque handle as part of your struct, which you can allocate however you like. This approach is even used in C++ to provide ABI compatibility.


 struct SomeStruct {
  int member;
  void* internals; //allocate this to your private struct
Wednesday, June 16, 2021
answered 6 Months ago

Consider what you are doing. You're allocating memory. And if for some reason memory allocation cannot work, you assert. Which is more or less exactly what will happen if you just let the std::bad_alloc propagate back to main. In a release build, where assert is a no-op, your program will crash when it tries to access the memory. So it's the same as letting the exception bubble up: halting the app.

So ask yourself a question: Do you really need to care what happens if you run out of memory? If all you're doing is asserting, then the exception method is better, because it doesn't clutter your code with random asserts. You just let the exception fall back to main.

If you do in fact have a special codepath in the event that you cannot allocate memory (that is, you can actually continue to function), exceptions may or may not be a way to go, depending on what the codepath is. If the codepath is just a switch set by having a pointer be null, then the nothrow version will be simpler. If instead, you need to do something rather different (pull from a static buffer, or delete some stuff, or whatever), then catching std::bad_alloc is quite good.

Thursday, June 17, 2021
answered 6 Months ago

The scenario would be that the first thread that calls WaitOne should immediately pass through, without blocking.

Check the Silverlight documentation for AutoResetEvent (strangely enough the doc is not the same on the .Net versions):

Specifying true for initialState creates an AutoResetEvent in the signaled state. This is useful if you want the first thread that waits for the AutoResetEvent to be released immediately, without blocking."

Friday, October 29, 2021
answered 1 Month ago
Only authorized users can answer the question. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged :