{"id":109472,"date":"2024-03-04T07:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-03-04T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/?p=109472"},"modified":"2024-03-04T08:05:16","modified_gmt":"2024-03-04T16:05:16","slug":"20240304-00","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/20240304-00\/?p=109472","title":{"rendered":"Is shadowing a member variable from a base class a bad thing? Maybe, but maybe not."},"content":{"rendered":"

What is shadowing? In C++, shadowing<\/i> is the name given to the phenomenon when a name in one scope hides an identical name in another scope.<\/p>\n

Is shadowing bad? That’s a harder question.<\/p>\n

Whether shadowing is good or bad depends on the order in which the conflicting names were introduced.<\/p>\n

Suppose you have a class library, and one of the classes is this:<\/p>\n

struct Tool {\r\n    int a;\r\n};\r\n<\/pre>\n
And suppose some customer uses your class like this:<\/p>\n
class Wrench : public Tool {\r\nprivate:\r\n    int a;\r\n};\r\n<\/pre>\n
In this case, shadowing is probably unintended. The customer has accidentally shadowed Tool::a<\/code>, and any references to a<\/code> in the Wrench<\/code> class will refer to Wrench::a<\/code>, even if the author meant to access Tool::a<\/code>.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, you have another customer who writes this:<\/p>\n
class Pliers : public Tool {\r\nprivate:\r\n    int b;\r\n};\r\n<\/pre>\n
There is no shadowing going on here. Everything is just fine. Your library’s Tool<\/code> class happily accesses the a<\/code> member, and the customers Pliers<\/code> class can also access the Tool::a<\/code> member.<\/p>\n
In the next version of your library, you add a new member to Tool<\/code>.<\/p>\n
struct Tool {\r\n    int a;\r\n    int b;<\/span> \/\/ new member variable\r\n};\r\n<\/pre>\n
Does this create a problem with customers of your library? In particular, does this break the Pliers<\/code> class?<\/p>\n
No, it doesn’t create any problems.<\/p>\n
All of your library code that uses Tool<\/code> will continue to use Tool<\/code> pointers and references, and it can write tool->b<\/code> or tool.b<\/code> to access that new b<\/code> member. Even if the Pliers<\/code> object is passed to a function that expects a Tool<\/code>, the fact that Pliers::b<\/code> shadows Tool::b<\/code> has no effect on code that uses the Tool<\/code>. Inside the Tool<\/code> class, this<\/code> is a Tool*<\/code>, so writing b<\/code> refers to this->b<\/code>, which is the Tool<\/code>‘s b<\/code>. Outside the Tool<\/code> class, tool->b<\/code> and tool.b<\/code> still access the Tool::b<\/code>.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the Pliers<\/code> is also unaffected. When code in the Pliers<\/code> class writes b<\/code>, it gets the Pliers<\/code>‘s b<\/code> member, just like it did in version 1 of your tool library. And if you have a Pliers*<\/code> or a Pliers&<\/code>, you can write pliers->b<\/code> or pliers.b<\/code>, and you will get Pliers::b<\/code>. Since there was no Tool::b<\/code> at the time the original Pliers<\/code> code was written, there was no possibility of writing tool->b<\/code> in the Pliers<\/code> project because there was no Tool::b<\/code> in version 1 of the library.<\/p>\n
Shadowing saves the day! You can add a member to the base class without breaking existing code.<\/p>\n
Now, of course, if after upgrading to version 2 of your tools library, the Pliers<\/code> wants to start taking advantage of the new b<\/code> member, then the developer of the Pliers<\/code> object will have to do some extra work to resolve the conflict by writing pliers->b<\/code> to access Pliers::b<\/code> and pliers->Tool::b<\/code> to access Tool::b<\/code>.<\/p>\n
So sometimes shadowing is a good thing that keeps code working. And sometimes shadowing is a bad thing that prevents new code from working. Whether it’s more good than bad depends on the order in which the conflicting names were introduced. And the order in which the code was written is not something a compiler has insight into. It’s something that only you, the human being who assembled the project from a library and some personally-written code, will understand.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It depends on the order in which things occurred.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1069,"featured_media":111744,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[25],"class_list":["post-109472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-oldnewthing","tag-code"],"acf":[],"blog_post_summary":"
It depends on the order in which things occurred.<\/p>\n","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109472","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1069"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109472\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/111744"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}