Question

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

class A             { public: void eat(){ cout<<"A";} };
class B: public A   { public: void eat(){ cout<<"B";} };
class C: public A   { public: void eat(){ cout<<"C";} };
class D: public B,C { public: void eat(){ cout<<"D";} };

int main(){
    A *a = new D();
    a->eat();
}

I am not sure this is called diamond problem or not, but why doesn’t this work?

I have given the defination for eat() for D. So, it doesn’t need to use either B‘s or C‘s copy (so, there should be no problem).

When I said, a->eat() (remember eat() is not virtual), there is only one possible eat() to call, that of A.

Why then, do I get this error:

‘A’ is an ambiguous base of ‘D’

---

What exactly does A *a = new D(); mean to the compiler??

and

Why does the same problem not occur when I use D *d = new D();?

Answer 1

Imagine a slightly different scenario

class A             { protected: int a; public: void eat(){ a++; cout<<a;} };
class B: public A   { public: void eat(){ cout<<a;} };
class C: public A   { public: void eat(){ cout<<a;} };
class D: public B,C { public: void eat(){ cout<<"D";} };

int main(){
    A *a = new D();
    a->eat();
}

If this would work, would it increment the a in B or the a in C? That’s why it’s ambiguous. The this pointer and any non-static data member is distinct for the two A subobjects (one of which is contained by the B subobject, and the other by the C subobject). Try changing your code like this and it will work (in that it compiles and prints “A”)

class A             { public: void eat(){ cout<<"A";} };
class B: public A   { public: void eat(){ cout<<"B";} };
class C: public A   { public: void eat(){ cout<<"C";} };
class D: public B, public C { public: void eat(){ cout<<"D";} };

int main(){
    A *a = static_cast<B*>(new D());
      // A *a = static_cast<C*>(new D());
    a->eat();
}

That will call eat on the A subobject of B and C respectively.