Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I read an answer some time back to a question regarding dynamic_cast. The dynamic_cast failed to work because the base class had no virtual methods. One of the answers said that deriving from classes with no virtual methods generally means a bad design. Is this correct? Even without taking advantage of polymorphism, I still can’t see the wrongness in doing this.
It depends what we’re talking about:
std::unary_functioncomes to mind)privateinheritance (used instead of composition to benefit from Empty Base Optimization) it’s fine tooThe problem comes when you starts treating such a Derived object polymorphically wrt this Base class. If you ever attain such a position, then it’s definite code smell.
Note: Even when noted as fine above, you are still providing the ability to use the class polymorphically, and you thus expose yourself to subtle bugs.