Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!pp!riunite!rfg
From: rfg@riunite.ACA.MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Functions not defined in base class
Message-ID: <194@riunite.ACA.MCC.COM>
Date: 3 May 89 23:47:42 GMT
References: <897@servax0.ESSEX.AC.UK>
Reply-To: rfg@riunite.UUCP (Ron Guilmette)
Organization: MCC  Austin, Texas
Lines: 27

In article <897@servax0.ESSEX.AC.UK> goss@ese.essex.ac.uk writes:

    { and I paraphrase ... }

{Given that I have a pointer to an object, and given that the object is
itself (at least) of some particular base class, I would like to...}

>... be able to call a member function of {the actual derived class type of the object}
>that is not defined for {the obvious static base class type of the object}, should I
>
>---OPTION 1 ----
>
>(1) Define an empty function with the same name as for the sub-class
>    in the base-class's declaration. 
...
>Or 
>
>(2) should I do some sort of casting operation?

I would also like an answer to this question.  What is stylistically preferable?
Is there a consensus on which of these alternatives is better?

-- 
// Ron Guilmette  -  MCC  -  Experimental Systems Kit Project
// 3500 West Balcones Center Drive,  Austin, TX  78759  -  (512)338-3740
// ARPA: rfg@mcc.com
// UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg