What's the point of a final virtual function?

Question

Wikipedia has the following example on the C++11 final modifier:

struct Base2 {
    virtual void f() final;
};

struct Derived2 : Base2 {
    void f(); // ill-formed because the virtual function Base2::f has been marked final
};

I don't understand the point of introducing a virtual function and immediately marking it as final. Is this simply a bad example, or is there more to it?

Answer 1

I found another case where for virtual function is useful to be declared as final. This case is part of SonarQube list of warnings. The warning description says:

Calling an overridable member function from a constructor or destructor could result in unexpected behavior when instantiating a subclass which overrides the member function.

For example:
- By contract, the subclass class constructor starts by calling the parent class constructor.
- The parent class constructor calls the parent member function and not the one overridden in the child class, which is confusing for child class' developer.
- It can produce an undefined behavior if the member function is pure virtual in the parent class.

Noncompliant Code Example

class Parent {
  public:
    Parent() {
      method1();
      method2(); // Noncompliant; confusing because Parent::method2() will always been called even if the method is overridden
    }
    virtual ~Parent() {
      method3(); // Noncompliant; undefined behavior (ex: throws a "pure virtual method called" exception)
    }
  protected:
    void         method1() { /*...*/ }
    virtual void method2() { /*...*/ }
    virtual void method3() = 0; // pure virtual
};

class Child : public Parent {
  public:
    Child() { // leads to a call to Parent::method2(), not Child::method2()
    }
    virtual ~Child() {
      method3(); // Noncompliant; Child::method3() will always be called even if a child class overrides method3
    }
  protected:
    void method2() override { /*...*/ }
    void method3() override { /*...*/ }
};

Compliant Solution

class Parent {
  public:
    Parent() {
      method1();
      Parent::method2(); // acceptable but poor design
    }
    virtual ~Parent() {
      // call to pure virtual function removed
    }
  protected:
    void         method1() { /*...*/ }
    virtual void method2() { /*...*/ }
    virtual void method3() = 0;
};

class Child : public Parent {
  public:
    Child() {
    }
    virtual ~Child() {
      method3(); // method3() is now final so this is okay
    }
  protected:
    void method2() override { /*...*/ }
    void method3() final    { /*...*/ } // this virtual function is "final"
};

Answer 2

Here is why you might actually choose to declare a function both virtual and final in a base class:

class A {
    void f();
};

class B : public A {
    void f(); // Compiles fine!
};

class C {
    virtual void f() final;
};

class D : public C {
    void f(); // Generates error.
};

A function marked final has to be also be virtual. Marking a function final prevents you from declaring a function with the same name and signature in a derived class.

Answer 3

Adding to the nice answers above - Here is a well-known application of final (very much inspired from Java). Assume we define a function wait() in a Base class, and we want only one implementation of wait() in all its descendants. In this case, we can declare wait() as final.

For example:

class Base { 
   public: 
       virtual void wait() final { cout << "I m inside Base::wait()" << endl; }
       void wait_non_final() { cout << "I m inside Base::wait_non_final()" << endl; }
}; 

and here is the definition of the derived class:

class Derived : public Base {
      public: 
        // assume programmer had no idea there is a function Base::wait() 

        // error: wait is final
        void wait() { cout << "I am inside Derived::wait() \n"; } 
        // that's ok    
        void wait_non_final() { cout << "I am inside Derived::wait_non_final(); }

} 

It would be useless (and not correct) if wait() was a pure virtual function. In this case: the compiler will ask you to define wait() inside the derived class. If you do so, it will give you an error because wait() is final.

Why should a final function be virtual? (which is also confusing) Because (imo) 1) the concept of final is very close to the concept of virtual functions [virtual functions has many implementations - final functions has only one implementation], 2) it is easy to implement the final effect using vtables.

Answer 4

Instead of this:

public:
    virtual void f();

I find it useful to write this:

public:
    virtual void f() final
        {
        do_f(); // breakpoint here
        }
protected:
    virtual void do_f();

The main reason being that you now have a single place to breakpoint before dispatching into any of potentially many overridden implementations. Sadly (IMHO), saying "final" also requires that you say "virtual."