Design and Architecture

Stephen Hewitt wrote:

I don't agree that it’s necessarily bad design. It’s perfectly reasonable for a derived class to add functionality rather than replace it.

class CMyClass
{
public:
	bool DoSomething() // NOTE: I'm not virtual!
	{
		// Do something.
 
		int size = DoSomething_GetSize();
 
		// Do other stuff.
 
		std::string str = DoSomething_GetString();
 
		// Do even more stuff.....
	}
 
private:
	virtual int DoSomething_GetSize()
	{
		return 1; // Default.
	}
 
	virtual std::string DoSomething_GetString()
	{
		return std::string("Hello"); // Default.
	}
};

The Grand Negus wrote:

Technobabble. I think you guys like this stuff to be obscure.

The Grand Negus wrote:

Is "anterior" better than "front"? Is "podiatrist" clearer than "foot doctor"? Is "bi-directional communication link" an improvement over "two-way radio"?

The Grand Negus wrote:

My 2006 Chevy has almost twice as many parts as my 1964 Cadillac but is not significantly better in any way.

Stephen Hewitt wrote:

This is in C++. I'm no C# expert so I'm not sure how much of this will cleanly translate.

Stephen Hewitt wrote:

One pattern you may be interesting in is the following:

pprice wrote:

If you override a virtual function in class inherited from a standard control, does that not by default inclde a call to the base function??

public class BaseClass
{
    private void DoMyThing()
    {
        //Required stuff

        //either do your code before calling DoSomething or 
        //after depending on the logic requirements
        DoSomething();
    }
    public virtual void DoSomething()
    {
        //Only optional stuff
    }
}

public class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
    public override void DoSomething()
    {
        // More stuff...

        //the base will do its thing either before this or after
        //if required, else if its optional then call the base here
    }
}