Bruce Eckel's Thinking in C++, 2nd Ed Contents | Prev | Next

Abstract base classes and pure virtual functions

Often in a design, you want the base class to present only an interface for its derived classes. That is, you don’t want anyone to actually create an object of the base class, only to upcast to it so that its interface can be used. This is accomplished by making that class abstract by giving it at least one pure virtual function . You can recognize a pure virtual function because it uses the virtual keyword and is followed by = 0 . If anyone tries to make an object of an abstract class, the compiler prevents them. This is a tool that allows you to enforce a particular design.

When an abstract class is inherited, all pure virtual functions must be implemented, or the inherited class becomes abstract as well. Creating a pure virtual function allows you to put a member function in an interface without being forced to provide a possibly meaningless body of code for that member function, and at the same time forcing inherited classes to provide a definition for it.

In all the instrument examples, the functions in the base class Instrument were always “dummy” functions. If these functions are ever called, they indicate you’ve done something wrong. That’s because the intent of Instrument is to create a common interface for all the classes derived from it.

[[ corrected diagram here ]]

The only reason to establish the common interface is so it can be expressed differently for each different subtype. It establishes a basic form, so you can say what’s in common with all the derived classes. Nothing else. Another way of saying this is to call Instrument an abstract base class (or simply an abstract class ). You create an abstract class when you want to manipulate a set of classes through this common interface.

Notice you are only required to declare a function as virtual in the base class. All derived-class functions that match the signature of the base-class declaration will be called using the virtual mechanism. You can use the virtual keyword in the derived-class declarations (and some people do, for clarity), but it is redundant.

If you have a genuine abstract class (like Instrument), objects of that class almost always have no meaning. That is, Instrument is meant to express only the interface, and not a particular implementation, so creating an Instrument object makes no sense, and you’ll probably want to prevent the user from doing it. This can be accomplished by making all the virtual functions in Instrument print error messages, but this delays the information until runtime and requires reliable exhaustive testing on the part of the user. It is much better to catch the problem at compile time.

C++ provides a mechanism for doing this called the pure virtual function . Here is the syntax used for a declaration:

virtual void X() = 0;

By doing this, you tell the compiler to reserve a slot for a function in the VTABLE, but not to put an address in that particular slot. If only one function in a class is declared as pure virtual, the VTABLE is incomplete. A class containing pure virtual functions is called a pure abstract base class.

If the VTABLE for a class is incomplete, what is the compiler supposed to do when someone tries to make an object of that class? It cannot safely create an object of a pure abstract class, so you get an error message from the compiler if you try to make an object of a pure abstract class. Thus, the compiler ensures the purity of the abstract class, and you don’t have to worry about misusing it.

Here’s Wind4.cpp modified to use pure virtual functions: 

//: C15:Wind5.cpp
// Pure abstract base classes
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
enum note { middleC, Csharp, Cflat }; // Etc.

class Instrument {
public:
  // Pure virtual functions:
  virtual void play(note) const = 0;
  virtual char* what() const = 0;
  // Assume this will modify the object:
  virtual void adjust(int) = 0;
};
// Rest of the file is the same ...

class Wind : public Instrument {
public:
  void play(note) const {
    cout << "Wind::play" << endl;
  }
  char* what() const { return "Wind"; }
  void adjust(int) {}
};

class Percussion : public Instrument {
public:
  void play(note) const {
    cout << "Percussion::play" << endl;
  }
  char* what() const { return "Percussion"; }
  void adjust(int) {}
};

class Stringed : public Instrument {
public:
  void play(note) const {
    cout << "Stringed::play" << endl;
  }
  char* what() const { return "Stringed"; }
  void adjust(int) {}
};

class Brass : public Wind {
public:
  void play(note) const {
    cout << "Brass::play" << endl;
  }
  char* what() const { return "Brass"; }
};

class Woodwind : public Wind {
public:
  void play(note) const {
    cout << "Woodwind::play" << endl;
  }
  char* what() const { return "Woodwind"; }
};

// Identical function from before:
void tune(Instrument& i) {
  // ...
  i.play(middleC);
}

// New function:
void f(Instrument& i) { i.adjust(1); }

int main() {
  Wind flute;
  Percussion drum;
  Stringed violin;
  Brass flugelhorn;
  Woodwind recorder;
  tune(flute);
  tune(drum);
  tune(violin);
  tune(flugelhorn);
  tune(recorder);
  f(flugelhorn);
} ///:~

Pure virtual functions are very helpful because they make explicit the abstractness of a class and tell both the user and the compiler how it was intended to be used.

Note that pure virtual functions prevent a function call with the pure abstract class being passed in by value. Thus it is also a way to prevent object slicing from accidentally upcasting by value. This way you can ensure that a pointer or reference is always used during upcasting.

Because one pure virtual function prevents the VTABLE from being generated doesn’t mean you don’t want function bodies for some of the others. Often you will want to call a base-class version of a function, even if it is virtual. It’s always a good idea to put common code as close as possible to the root of your hierarchy. Not only does this save code space, it allows easy propagation of changes.

Pure virtual definitions

It’s possible to provide a definition for a pure virtual function in the base class. You’re still telling the compiler not to allow objects of that pure abstract base class, and the pure virtual functions must be defined in derived classes in order to create objects. However, there may be a piece of code you want some or all the derived class definitions to use in common, and you don’t want to duplicate that code in every function. Here’s what it looks like: 

//: C15:Pvdef.cpp
// Pure virtual base definition
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

class Base {
public:
  virtual void v() const = 0;
  virtual void f() const = 0;
  // Inline pure virtual definitions illegal:
  //!  virtual void g() const = 0 {}
};

// OK, not defined inline
void Base::f() const {
  cout << "Base::f()\n";
}

void Base::v() const { cout << "Base::v()\n";}

class D : public Base {
public:
  // Use the common Base code:
  void v() const { Base::v(); }
  void f() const { Base::f(); }
};

int main() {
  D d;
  d.v();
  d.f();
} ///:~

The slot in the Base VTABLE is still empty, but there happens to be a function by that name you can call in the derived class.

The other benefit to this feature is that it allows you to change to a pure virtual without disturbing the existing code. (This is a way for you to locate classes that don’t redefine that virtual function).

Contents | Prev | Next