C / C++ / MFC

Naveen wrote:

I think he mean the value in *result

rowdy_vc++ wrote:

i need your answer..

class Base
{
//...
public:
virtual void do_things();
protected:
void do_common1();
void do_common2();
bool test_common();
};

class Derived: public Base
{
public:
virtual void do_things();
//...
};

Base::do_things()
{
//...
}

Derived::do_things()
{
  do_something_specific();
  do_common1();
  do_something_else_specific();
  if ( test_common() )
  {
   do_common2();
  }
  else
  {
   do_something_specific3();
  }
  //...
}

void do_common1();
void do_common2();
bool test_common();

George_George wrote:

What harm will be if we make the following 3 methods virtual?

George_George wrote:

I think the design architecure is still clean as your sample without code change, right?

George_George wrote:

So, you mean for the 3 non-virtual "common" methods, it means derived class and base class should share common code?

George_George wrote:

So, making the 3 non-virtual "common" methods virtual will make developer confused about potential efforts to override and provide differences (polymorphism)?

George_George wrote:

A small confusion. I think whether or not making a method virtual is dependent on whether derived class needs to override it, and has nothing to do with whether the method is big or small.

George_George wrote:

Why do you making decision whether a method is virtual or not also based on whether the method is big or small? what is your trade-off?