Operator overloading issue

stuartlittle · #1 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2009, 02:04 AM

Hi ,
I made a small program in which I overloaded an operator in base class
and few other operators in derived class , now while using all of them from
main using derive class object it's giving problem as it says that:

can't implicitly convert base class to derive one.

Why I can't use base class overloaded operator with derived one? What is the work around of it?

gbianchi · #2 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2009, 08:01 AM

Hello. Can you provide some examples of what are you doing??

stuartlittle · #3 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2009, 09:25 AM

Ok here is the sample example:

Code:

public class Base
    {
        private int a;
        public Base(int a)
        {
            this.a = a;
        }
        public static Base operator ++(Base B)
        {
            return new Base(B.a + 1);
        }

    }

class Derive : Base
    {
        private int d;
        public Derive(int d, int a)
            : base(a)
        {
            this.d = d;
        }
    }

now in Main, I was trying this:

Code:

 Derive d = new Derive(1, 2);

 Base b = ++d; // here the error occurs.

I thought on it and found that it is not possible. As compiler understand that it has to call the base class overloaded operator but the parameter is actually a derived one even it inherits the Base class.
There is a naive approach to achieve it as:

Code:

Derive d = new Derive(1, 2);
Base a = d;
Base b = ++a; // no error now.

Since you asked to give a sample example of it, so this is it..

Thanks..

Old Pedant · #4 (**permalink**) January 28th, 2009, 06:30 PM

Interesting discovery. I think it's because your operator is static.

I remember doing this years ago in C++, but I sure don't remember using static operators. Is this a requirement of C#???

stuartlittle · #5 (**permalink**) February 5th, 2009, 12:24 AM

Yes it should be static in C#.

PeterPeiGuo · #6 (**permalink**) March 13th, 2009, 05:33 PM

I have no problem with the error you got, as the compiler simply has an issue with implicit cast. But strangly, with explicit casting, the compiler got further confused:

Code:

 
Base b = ++ (d as Base);
Base bb = ++ ((Base)d);

None of the above passes compiler and it complains that the ++ operator is not followed by a variable, when it certainly does. I think the parser somehow got confused. I would view this as a bug in the tool.

C@uark · #7 (**permalink**) October 31st, 2009, 08:09 AM

its becuse the compiler does not implictly cast when a loss of data could occur. Since going from Derive to Base (a down cast) could poteintial lead to a loss of data without examining what exactly is going on(which complier does not do), the compiler issue an error. This is a "strongly typed language" feature to weed out bugs, there is nothing wrong with your code in terms of OOP; the compiler just wants you explicitly do the cast to insure thats what you inteneded.

The next error in question:
"None of the above passes compiler and it complains that the ++ operator is not followed by a variable, when it certainly does."

is not really true, looks like it is but its not. need to understand interpreters and evaluators for this one. when the compiler builds its parse tree. it will do something like this(this is not exactly what happens but the theory behind it)

.......................(++) (requires an L value, a variable to store result in)
..........................|
....................(Base) (type cast operation)
.............|...................|
........new type ......old type
...........Base ........Derived d (is evaluated before being type cast to new type)

When the type cast operation is evaluated the variable name is evaluated(value extracted from variable), converted to the new type and returned as a value(with type Base) to the increment operator where it is expecting an L(left hand side) value a.k.a, a vaiable to store the result of the increment in. Since the varibable will be lost on the upward climb from type casting and all that would remain is the value, the increment can not store the result in a meaningful persistant location, so to prevent this from happening the systax checker flags this before running so not to produce a run time error .

Need to download code?

Navigation