Idiomatic way to prevent slicing? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) The Ask Question Wizard is Live! Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experienceForce function to be called only with specific typesWhat is object slicing?How to initialize a const field in constructor?What's the point of g++ -Wreorder?Java: Can Vector<derived> be called as Vector<base>?Easiest way to convert int to string in C++capture variables inside of subclass?Detecting if a type can be derived from in C++Implementing polymorphic operator==() in C++ idiomatic wayIs using inline classes inside a function permitted to be used as template types?Short-circuit evaluation and assignment in C++

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

Can the prologue be the backstory of your main character?

Hopping to infinity along a string of digits

Match Roman Numerals

How should I replace vector<uint8_t>::const_iterator in an API?

When did F become S in typeography, and why?

How did the audience guess the pentatonic scale in Bobby McFerrin's presentation?

Was credit for the black hole image misattributed?

Change bounding box of math glyphs in LuaTeX

Take groceries in checked luggage

What are these Gizmos at Izaña Atmospheric Research Center in Spain?

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

The variadic template constructor of my class cannot modify my class members, why is that so?

Why is superheterodyning better than direct conversion?

Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?

Semisimplicity of the category of coherent sheaves?

In horse breeding, what is the female equivalent of putting a horse out "to stud"?

Sort list of array linked objects by keys and values

How to copy the contents of all files with a certain name into a new file?

Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?

Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?

Is this wall load bearing? Blueprints and photos attached

How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?

Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?



Idiomatic way to prevent slicing?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experienceForce function to be called only with specific typesWhat is object slicing?How to initialize a const field in constructor?What's the point of g++ -Wreorder?Java: Can Vector<derived> be called as Vector<base>?Easiest way to convert int to string in C++capture variables inside of subclass?Detecting if a type can be derived from in C++Implementing polymorphic operator==() in C++ idiomatic wayIs using inline classes inside a function permitted to be used as template types?Short-circuit evaluation and assignment in C++



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








14















Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



struct foo int a; ;
struct bar : foo int b; ;

int main()
bar x1,2;
foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!



This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



What is the idiomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










share|improve this question
























  • The easiest way is to not use inheritance. You have have foo be a member variable of bar.

    – KevinZ
    yesterday











  • @KevinZ stackoverflow.com/a/55600208/4117728

    – user463035818
    yesterday

















14















Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



struct foo int a; ;
struct bar : foo int b; ;

int main()
bar x1,2;
foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!



This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



What is the idiomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










share|improve this question
























  • The easiest way is to not use inheritance. You have have foo be a member variable of bar.

    – KevinZ
    yesterday











  • @KevinZ stackoverflow.com/a/55600208/4117728

    – user463035818
    yesterday













14












14








14


4






Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



struct foo int a; ;
struct bar : foo int b; ;

int main()
bar x1,2;
foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!



This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



What is the idiomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










share|improve this question
















Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



struct foo int a; ;
struct bar : foo int b; ;

int main()
bar x1,2;
foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!



This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



What is the idiomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?







c++ inheritance object-slicing






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







user463035818

















asked Apr 9 at 19:32









user463035818user463035818

19.1k42971




19.1k42971












  • The easiest way is to not use inheritance. You have have foo be a member variable of bar.

    – KevinZ
    yesterday











  • @KevinZ stackoverflow.com/a/55600208/4117728

    – user463035818
    yesterday

















  • The easiest way is to not use inheritance. You have have foo be a member variable of bar.

    – KevinZ
    yesterday











  • @KevinZ stackoverflow.com/a/55600208/4117728

    – user463035818
    yesterday
















The easiest way is to not use inheritance. You have have foo be a member variable of bar.

– KevinZ
yesterday





The easiest way is to not use inheritance. You have have foo be a member variable of bar.

– KevinZ
yesterday













@KevinZ stackoverflow.com/a/55600208/4117728

– user463035818
yesterday





@KevinZ stackoverflow.com/a/55600208/4117728

– user463035818
yesterday












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















16














I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



struct foo 

int a;
foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

template<typename T>
foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

template<typename T>
foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
;


then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






share|improve this answer

























  • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

    – eerorika
    Apr 9 at 20:02











  • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

    – user463035818
    Apr 9 at 20:05






  • 1





    @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

    – NathanOliver
    Apr 9 at 20:06






  • 4





    I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

    – NathanOliver
    Apr 9 at 20:08












  • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

    – user463035818
    Apr 10 at 8:23


















5














Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



#include <iostream>
struct foo int a; ;
struct bar : foo int b; ;

int main()
bar x1,2;
auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



#include <iostream>

struct foo int a; ;
struct bar

bar(int a, int b)
: foo_(a)
, b(b)


int b;

int get_a() const return foo_.a;

private:
foo foo_;
;

int main()
bar x1,2;
// foo y = x; // <- does not compile




Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



#include <iostream>

struct foo
int a;
protected:
foo(foo const&) = default;
foo(foo&&) = default;
foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

;

struct bar : foo

bar(int a, int b)
: fooa, bb


int b;
;

int main()
auto x = bar (1,2);
// foo y = x; // <- does not compile






share|improve this answer






























    3














    You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



    struct foo 
    // ...
    protected:
    foo(foo&) = default;
    ;





    share|improve this answer


















    • 6





      but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

      – user463035818
      Apr 9 at 19:42











    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55600025%2fidiomatic-way-to-prevent-slicing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    16














    I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



    struct foo 

    int a;
    foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

    template<typename T>
    foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

    template<typename T>
    foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
    ;


    then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

      – eerorika
      Apr 9 at 20:02











    • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

      – user463035818
      Apr 9 at 20:05






    • 1





      @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

      – NathanOliver
      Apr 9 at 20:06






    • 4





      I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

      – NathanOliver
      Apr 9 at 20:08












    • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

      – user463035818
      Apr 10 at 8:23















    16














    I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



    struct foo 

    int a;
    foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

    template<typename T>
    foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

    template<typename T>
    foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
    ;


    then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

      – eerorika
      Apr 9 at 20:02











    • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

      – user463035818
      Apr 9 at 20:05






    • 1





      @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

      – NathanOliver
      Apr 9 at 20:06






    • 4





      I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

      – NathanOliver
      Apr 9 at 20:08












    • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

      – user463035818
      Apr 10 at 8:23













    16












    16








    16







    I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



    struct foo 

    int a;
    foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

    template<typename T>
    foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

    template<typename T>
    foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
    ;


    then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






    share|improve this answer















    I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



    struct foo 

    int a;
    foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

    template<typename T>
    foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

    template<typename T>
    foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
    ;


    then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Apr 9 at 19:56

























    answered Apr 9 at 19:43









    NathanOliverNathanOliver

    98.7k16138218




    98.7k16138218












    • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

      – eerorika
      Apr 9 at 20:02











    • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

      – user463035818
      Apr 9 at 20:05






    • 1





      @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

      – NathanOliver
      Apr 9 at 20:06






    • 4





      I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

      – NathanOliver
      Apr 9 at 20:08












    • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

      – user463035818
      Apr 10 at 8:23

















    • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

      – eerorika
      Apr 9 at 20:02











    • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

      – user463035818
      Apr 9 at 20:05






    • 1





      @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

      – NathanOliver
      Apr 9 at 20:06






    • 4





      I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

      – NathanOliver
      Apr 9 at 20:08












    • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

      – user463035818
      Apr 10 at 8:23
















    Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

    – eerorika
    Apr 9 at 20:02





    Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

    – eerorika
    Apr 9 at 20:02













    if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

    – user463035818
    Apr 9 at 20:05





    if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

    – user463035818
    Apr 9 at 20:05




    1




    1





    @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

    – NathanOliver
    Apr 9 at 20:06





    @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

    – NathanOliver
    Apr 9 at 20:06




    4




    4





    I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

    – NathanOliver
    Apr 9 at 20:08






    I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

    – NathanOliver
    Apr 9 at 20:08














    actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

    – user463035818
    Apr 10 at 8:23





    actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

    – user463035818
    Apr 10 at 8:23













    5














    Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



    #include <iostream>
    struct foo int a; ;
    struct bar : foo int b; ;

    int main()
    bar x1,2;
    auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



    If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



    Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



    #include <iostream>

    struct foo int a; ;
    struct bar

    bar(int a, int b)
    : foo_(a)
    , b(b)


    int b;

    int get_a() const return foo_.a;

    private:
    foo foo_;
    ;

    int main()
    bar x1,2;
    // foo y = x; // <- does not compile




    Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



    #include <iostream>

    struct foo
    int a;
    protected:
    foo(foo const&) = default;
    foo(foo&&) = default;
    foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
    foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

    ;

    struct bar : foo

    bar(int a, int b)
    : fooa, bb


    int b;
    ;

    int main()
    auto x = bar (1,2);
    // foo y = x; // <- does not compile






    share|improve this answer



























      5














      Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



      #include <iostream>
      struct foo int a; ;
      struct bar : foo int b; ;

      int main()
      bar x1,2;
      auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



      If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



      Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



      #include <iostream>

      struct foo int a; ;
      struct bar

      bar(int a, int b)
      : foo_(a)
      , b(b)


      int b;

      int get_a() const return foo_.a;

      private:
      foo foo_;
      ;

      int main()
      bar x1,2;
      // foo y = x; // <- does not compile




      Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



      #include <iostream>

      struct foo
      int a;
      protected:
      foo(foo const&) = default;
      foo(foo&&) = default;
      foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
      foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

      ;

      struct bar : foo

      bar(int a, int b)
      : fooa, bb


      int b;
      ;

      int main()
      auto x = bar (1,2);
      // foo y = x; // <- does not compile






      share|improve this answer

























        5












        5








        5







        Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



        #include <iostream>
        struct foo int a; ;
        struct bar : foo int b; ;

        int main()
        bar x1,2;
        auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



        If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



        Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



        #include <iostream>

        struct foo int a; ;
        struct bar

        bar(int a, int b)
        : foo_(a)
        , b(b)


        int b;

        int get_a() const return foo_.a;

        private:
        foo foo_;
        ;

        int main()
        bar x1,2;
        // foo y = x; // <- does not compile




        Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



        #include <iostream>

        struct foo
        int a;
        protected:
        foo(foo const&) = default;
        foo(foo&&) = default;
        foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
        foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

        ;

        struct bar : foo

        bar(int a, int b)
        : fooa, bb


        int b;
        ;

        int main()
        auto x = bar (1,2);
        // foo y = x; // <- does not compile






        share|improve this answer













        Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



        #include <iostream>
        struct foo int a; ;
        struct bar : foo int b; ;

        int main()
        bar x1,2;
        auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



        If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



        Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



        #include <iostream>

        struct foo int a; ;
        struct bar

        bar(int a, int b)
        : foo_(a)
        , b(b)


        int b;

        int get_a() const return foo_.a;

        private:
        foo foo_;
        ;

        int main()
        bar x1,2;
        // foo y = x; // <- does not compile




        Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



        #include <iostream>

        struct foo
        int a;
        protected:
        foo(foo const&) = default;
        foo(foo&&) = default;
        foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
        foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

        ;

        struct bar : foo

        bar(int a, int b)
        : fooa, bb


        int b;
        ;

        int main()
        auto x = bar (1,2);
        // foo y = x; // <- does not compile







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Apr 9 at 19:43









        Richard HodgesRichard Hodges

        57.1k658105




        57.1k658105





















            3














            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo 
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            ;





            share|improve this answer


















            • 6





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              Apr 9 at 19:42















            3














            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo 
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            ;





            share|improve this answer


















            • 6





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              Apr 9 at 19:42













            3












            3








            3







            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo 
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            ;





            share|improve this answer













            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo 
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            ;






            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Apr 9 at 19:41









            eerorikaeerorika

            90.1k664136




            90.1k664136







            • 6





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              Apr 9 at 19:42












            • 6





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              Apr 9 at 19:42







            6




            6





            but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

            – user463035818
            Apr 9 at 19:42





            but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

            – user463035818
            Apr 9 at 19:42

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55600025%2fidiomatic-way-to-prevent-slicing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bulk add to cart function issuecart vs. mini cart issue … rwd themeRedirect Add to cart button to cart pageAdd to cart issue - Magento 2.1The requested Payment Method is not available When creating an orderM2: reason add-to-cart might not function in production modeAdd to cart issue in some android devicesMagento 2 - custom price can not add to subtotal and grand total after add to cartAdd to cart codeIssue with my cart module on pdp and cart pages, just keeps spinningBulk price and quantity update using rest api

            БиармияSxpst500bh2ntaf! 3h2r