C / C++ / MFC

George_George wrote:

1. Are they correct code?

George_George wrote:

2. It looks redundant to call so many times of AddRef and Release just to make the counter consistent, if you were me, do you have ways to write better code?

George_George wrote:

My question is, why static_cast to result in IUnknown*? Why not static_cast to result in IUnknown* to be more straightforward (even if I think using IX* and IUnknown* have the same effect)? Are there any reasons or advantages if we use IX* other than IUnknown*?

class Base {
public:
	int foo() {cout << "Base" << endl;}
};

class Derived1: public Base
{
public:
	int foo() {cout << "Derived1" << endl;}
};

class Derived2: public Base
{
public:
	int foo() {cout << "Derived2" << endl;}
};

class Final: public Derived1, public Derived2 {
public:
	int foo() {cout << "Final" << endl;}
};

int main()
{
	Final f;
	Base* pb = &f; //error C2594: 'initializing' : ambiguous conversions from 'Final *' to 'Base *'
	return 0;
}

Base* pb = (Derived1 *)&f; 

IUnknown* pI = static_cast<iunknown*>(static_cast <ix*> (new CA));
</ix*></iunknown*>

George_George wrote:

We can discuss in the situation of class other than interface.

George_George wrote:

Ambiguity means more than one different values could be selected. The different values in class is data members, not functions.

CPallini wrote:

know that. But, as I suggested before, since C++ syntax has no special syntax to designate interfaces (i.e. abstract classes) then probably the compiler cannot make assumptions on them and remains stuck to the more general case, thus finding (inexisting) ambiguities on the derivation path.

CPallini wrote:

how can the compiler resolve between IX::AddRef or IY::AddRef if it cannot make assumptions on the abstract nature of IX and IY classes?