<![CDATA[MISRA Discussion Forums - 6.10 Derived classes (C++)]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/ Thu, 05 Nov 2026 13:03:36 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Rule 10-2-1]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1475 Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:06:47 +0000 nishiyama]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1475
Quote:Name lookup can result in an ambiguity, in which case the program is ill-formed.

Therefore, the compiler always issues an error.
I think that this rule is excessive.]]>
Quote:Name lookup can result in an ambiguity, in which case the program is ill-formed.

Therefore, the compiler always issues an error.
I think that this rule is excessive.]]> <![CDATA[Rule 10-3-3　Re-declaring pure function]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1467 Tue, 05 Feb 2019 03:57:25 +0000 nishiyama]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1467
Rules 10-3-3 Rationale has the following description.

Re-declaring a function as pure may not meet developer expectations.

What do the developers expect?
What does it mean that it does not meet the expectations of developers?]]>
Rules 10-3-3 Rationale has the following description.

Re-declaring a function as pure may not meet developer expectations.

What do the developers expect?
What does it mean that it does not meet the expectations of developers?]]> <![CDATA[Clarity of Rule 14-6-1]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1225 Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:21:31 +0000 Insane Vent Storm]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1225 <![CDATA[Rule 10-3-1]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1018 Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:48:59 +0000 wcarl]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1018
If I'm interpreting this rule correctly, once you define a virtual function for a derived class with the virtual base class as an ancestor, no more derivations in the chain can override the first definition.

This would seem to cripple a key advantage of using classes and an object-oriented design.

Isn't it pretty common to override a virtual member function in a child class even if the parent class has provided a different definition? Please explain.]]>
If I'm interpreting this rule correctly, once you define a virtual function for a derived class with the virtual base class as an ancestor, no more derivations in the chain can override the first definition.

This would seem to cripple a key advantage of using classes and an object-oriented design.

Isn't it pretty common to override a virtual member function in a child class even if the parent class has provided a different definition? Please explain.]]>