tery_bboy wrote:
> What actually facilitates the late binding in run time polymorphism?
>
> Is it only the keyword VIRTUAL?
>
> because for example
>
> #include ....
>
> class A
> {
> public:
> virtual void display () = 0;
> };
>
> class B: public A
> {
> public:
> void display ()
> { cout << "B"; }
> };
>
> class C: public A
> {
> public:
> void display ()
> {cout <<"C";}
> };
>
> void main()
> {
> A a;
> B b;
> C c;
> A * ptr[3];
> ptr[0] = &a;
> ptr[1] = &b;
> ptr[2] = &c;
>
> ptr[1]-> display(); //What's so run time about this?
> }
>
> I mean, it is known quite well that ptr[1] points to an object of type
> B, this information is, according to what i think, available at
> compile time. Or does the keyword VIRTUAL change everything? and if
> that's so, what's the advantage of it run time polymorphism over
> compile time polymorphism???
>
> Please help me with these basics!
You've made the #1 mistake of base/derived classes: You forgot the
virtual destructors. Get in the habit of including them even for cheesy
examples.
To answer your question: You can pass a derived class to a function
that takes a base class as its input. That function can then call the
derived methods by calling the base class methods of the same name and
numbers and types of parameters. However, abstract classes (i.e. where
you declare functions in a class 'virtual ...() = 0') are much more
annoying to deal with in this manner.
--
Thomas Hruska
CubicleSoft President
Ph: 517-803-4197
*NEW* MyTaskFocus 1.1
Get on task. Stay on task.
http://www.CubicleSoft.com/MyTaskFocus/
