Develop Reference

Calling a super base class method from a derived class C# [duplicate]

// Cannot change source code
class Base
{
public virtual void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Base.");
}
}
// Cannot change source code
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived.");
base.Say();
}
}
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.Say();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SpecialDerived sd = new SpecialDerived();
sd.Say();
}
}
The result is:
Called from Special Derived.
Called from Derived. /* this is not expected */
Called from Base.
How can I rewrite SpecialDerived class so that middle class "Derived"'s method is not called?
UPDATE:
The reason why I want to inherit from Derived instead of Base is Derived class contains a lot of other implementations. Since I can't do base.base.method() here, I guess the best way is to do the following?
// Cannot change source code
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
CustomSay();
base.Say();
}
protected virtual void CustomSay()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived.");
}
}
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
/*
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.Say();
}
*/
protected override void CustomSay()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
}
}

Just want to add this here, since people still return to this question even after many time. Of course it's bad practice, but it's still possible (in principle) to do what author wants with:
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
var ptr = typeof(Base).GetMethod("Say").MethodHandle.GetFunctionPointer();
var baseSay = (Action)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Action), this, ptr);
baseSay();
}
}

This is a bad programming practice, and not allowed in C#. It's a bad programming practice because
The details of the grandbase are implementation details of the base; you shouldn't be relying on them. The base class is providing an abstraction overtop of the grandbase; you should be using that abstraction, not building a bypass to avoid it.
To illustrate a specific example of the previous point: if allowed, this pattern would be yet another way of making code susceptible to brittle-base-class failures. Suppose C derives from B which derives from A. Code in C uses base.base to call a method of A. Then the author of B realizes that they have put too much gear in class B, and a better approach is to make intermediate class B2 that derives from A, and B derives from B2. After that change, code in C is calling a method in B2, not in A, because C's author made an assumption that the implementation details of B, namely, that its direct base class is A, would never change. Many design decisions in C# are to mitigate the likelihood of various kinds of brittle base failures; the decision to make base.base illegal entirely prevents this particular flavour of that failure pattern.
You derived from your base because you like what it does and want to reuse and extend it. If you don't like what it does and want to work around it rather than work with it, then why did you derive from it in the first place? Derive from the grandbase yourself if that's the functionality you want to use and extend.
The base might require certain invariants for security or semantic consistency purposes that are maintained by the details of how the base uses the methods of the grandbase. Allowing a derived class of the base to skip the code that maintains those invariants could put the base into an inconsistent, corrupted state.

You can't from C#. From IL, this is actually supported. You can do a non-virt call to any of your parent classes... but please don't. :)

The answer (which I know is not what you're looking for) is:
class SpecialDerived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.Say();
}
}
The truth is, you only have direct interaction with the class you inherit from. Think of that class as a layer - providing as much or as little of it or its parent's functionality as it desires to its derived classes.
EDIT:
Your edit works, but I think I would use something like this:
class Derived : Base
{
protected bool _useBaseSay = false;
public override void Say()
{
if(this._useBaseSay)
base.Say();
else
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived");
}
}
Of course, in a real implementation, you might do something more like this for extensibility and maintainability:
class Derived : Base
{
protected enum Mode
{
Standard,
BaseFunctionality,
Verbose
//etc
}
protected Mode Mode
{
get; set;
}
public override void Say()
{
if(this.Mode == Mode.BaseFunctionality)
base.Say();
else
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived");
}
}
Then, derived classes can control their parents' state appropriately.

Why not simply cast the child class to a specific parent class and invoke the specific implementation then? This is a special case situation and a special case solution should be used. You will have to use the new keyword in the children methods though.
public class SuperBase
{
public string Speak() { return "Blah in SuperBase"; }
}
public class Base : SuperBase
{
public new string Speak() { return "Blah in Base"; }
}
public class Child : Base
{
public new string Speak() { return "Blah in Child"; }
}
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
Child childObj = new Child();
Console.WriteLine(childObj.Speak());
// casting the child to parent first and then calling Speak()
Console.WriteLine((childObj as Base).Speak());
Console.WriteLine((childObj as SuperBase).Speak());
}
}

public class A
{
public int i = 0;
internal virtual void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("A test");
}
}
public class B : A
{
public new int i = 1;
public new void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("B test");
}
}
public class C : B
{
public new int i = 2;
public new void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("C test - ");
(this as A).test();
}
}

You can also make a simple function in first level derived class, to call grand base function

My 2c for this is to implement the functionality you require to be called in a toolkit class and call that from wherever you need:
// Util.cs
static class Util
{
static void DoSomething( FooBase foo ) {}
}
// FooBase.cs
class FooBase
{
virtual void Do() { Util.DoSomething( this ); }
}
// FooDerived.cs
class FooDerived : FooBase
{
override void Do() { ... }
}
// FooDerived2.cs
class FooDerived2 : FooDerived
{
override void Do() { Util.DoSomething( this ); }
}
This does require some thought as to access privilege, you may need to add some internal accessor methods to facilitate the functionality.

In cases where you do not have access to the derived class source, but need all the source of the derived class besides the current method, then I would recommended you should also do a derived class and call the implementation of the derived class.
Here is an example:
//No access to the source of the following classes
public class Base
{
public virtual void method1(){ Console.WriteLine("In Base");}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public override void method1(){ Console.WriteLine("In Derived");}
public void method2(){ Console.WriteLine("Some important method in Derived");}
}
//Here should go your classes
//First do your own derived class
public class MyDerived : Base
{
}
//Then derive from the derived class
//and call the bass class implementation via your derived class
public class specialDerived : Derived
{
public override void method1()
{
MyDerived md = new MyDerived();
//This is actually the base.base class implementation
MyDerived.method1();
}
}

As can be seen from previous posts, one can argue that if class functionality needs to be circumvented then something is wrong in the class architecture. That might be true, but one cannot always restructure or refactor the class structure on a large mature project. The various levels of change management might be one problem, but to keep existing functionality operating the same after refactoring is not always a trivial task, especially if time constraints apply. On a mature project it can be quite an undertaking to keep various regression tests from passing after a code restructure; there are often obscure "oddities" that show up.
We had a similar problem in some cases inherited functionality should not execute (or should perform something else). The approach we followed below, was to put the base code that need to be excluded in a separate virtual function. This function can then be overridden in the derived class and the functionality excluded or altered. In this example "Text 2" can be prevented from output in the derived class.
public class Base
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello from Base");
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public override void Foo()
{
base.Foo();
Console.WriteLine("Text 1");
WriteText2Func();
Console.WriteLine("Text 3");
}
protected virtual void WriteText2Func()
{
Console.WriteLine("Text 2");
}
}
public class Special : Derived
{
public override void WriteText2Func()
{
//WriteText2Func will write nothing when
//method Foo is called from class Special.
//Also it can be modified to do something else.
}
}

There seems to be a lot of these questions surrounding inheriting a member method from a Grandparent Class, overriding it in a second Class, then calling its method again from a Grandchild Class. Why not just inherit the grandparent's members down to the grandchildren?
class A
{
private string mystring = "A";
public string Method1()
{
return mystring;
}
}
class B : A
{
// this inherits Method1() naturally
}
class C : B
{
// this inherits Method1() naturally
}
string newstring = "";
A a = new A();
B b = new B();
C c = new C();
newstring = a.Method1();// returns "A"
newstring = b.Method1();// returns "A"
newstring = c.Method1();// returns "A"
Seems simple....the grandchild inherits the grandparents method here. Think about it.....that's how "Object" and its members like ToString() are inherited down to all classes in C#. I'm thinking Microsoft has not done a good job of explaining basic inheritance. There is too much focus on polymorphism and implementation. When I dig through their documentation there are no examples of this very basic idea. :(

I had the same problem as the OP, where I only wanted to override a single method in the middle Class, leaving all other methods alone. My scenario was:
Class A - base class, DB access, uneditable.
Class B : A - "record type" specific functionality (editable, but only if backward compatible).
Class C : B - one particular field for one particular client.
I did very similar to the second part of the OP posting, except I put the base call into it's own method, which I called from from Say() method.
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived.");
BaseSay();
}
protected virtual void BaseSay()
{
base.Say();
}
}
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.BaseSay();
}
}
You could repeat this ad infinitum, giving, for example SpecialDerived a BaseBaseSay() method if you needed an ExtraSpecialDerived override to the SpecialDerived.
The best part of this is that if the Derived changes its inheritance from Base to Base2, all other overrides follow suit without needing changes.

If you want to access to base class data you must use "this" keyword or you use this keyword as reference for class.
namespace thiskeyword
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
I i = new I();
int res = i.m1();
Console.WriteLine(res);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class E
{
new public int x = 3;
}
public class F:E
{
new public int x = 5;
}
public class G:F
{
new public int x = 50;
}
public class H:G
{
new public int x = 20;
}
public class I:H
{
new public int x = 30;
public int m1()
{
// (this as <classname >) will use for accessing data to base class
int z = (this as I).x + base.x + (this as G).x + (this as F).x + (this as E).x; // base.x refer to H
return z;
}
}
}

Can we change grand parent class's method definitions?

I was working on a certain problem and found some interesting problem inside.
Let me explain with an example (C# code)
public class A: IA
{
protected abstract void Append(LoggingEvent loggingEvent)
{
//Some definition
}
}
public class B: A
{
protected override void Append(LoggingEvent loggingEvent)
{
//override definition
}
}
public class MyClass: B
{
//Here I want to change the definition of Append method.
}
Class A and B are of a certain library and I don't have any control to change those classes.

Since none of the methods in the hierarchy here are sealed, you can just continue overriding the method yourself:
public class MyClass: B
{
protected override void Append(LoggingEvent loggingEvent)
{
// New logic goes here...
}
}

I have shared the solution below based as per my research, but made few following changes to the code you shared based on my perception, since the code in the question is not valid at few occasions.
Added an empty Interface IA, as Class A is not implementing any public method.
Defined Class A as abstract, as any non-abstract class cannot define a abstract method.
Removed the body for Append method inside Class A, as a abstract method cannot have a body.
public interface IA
{
}
public abstract class A : IA
{
protected abstract void Append();
}
public class B : A
{
protected override void Append()
{
//override definition
}
}
public class MyClass : B
{
//Here I want to change the definition of Append method.
//You can do is hide the method by creating a new method with the same name
public new void Append() { }
}
Answer : You cannot override a non-virtual method. The closest thing you can do is hide the method by creating a new method with the same name but this is not advisable as it breaks good design principles.
But even hiding a method won't give you execution time polymorphic dispatch of method calls like a true virtual method call would.

Create a custom list without default methods

I am creating a list derived from CollectionBase, so that I can use my own methods. This is made in a dll project.
I just wanted to know if it is possible to hide the default methods from CollectionBase, so that only my methods appear when this list is being used.

If you derive from CollectionBase, then no, it's not possible. Your class then is a CollectionBase and so inherits all its methods. The need to hide something that you inherit is a clear hint that you should not use inheritence.
You could use composition instead:
public class MyList
{
private List<int> _privateList = new List<int>();
public void MyMethod1()
{
// Do something
}
public void MyMethod2()
{
// Do something
}
public void Add(int x)
{
_privateList.Add(x);
}
// etc.
}

If its virtual method, you can override and change to whatever behavior you want. If its not a virtual method, you can't hide them.
In any case you can re-declare the method with new (with same signature) and mark it with Obsolete attribute. This will force that compiler generates error if someone wants to use them. In following example calling Child.Method() will generate compiler error. This guarantees that no one can use the parent's method.
public class Parent
{
public void Method()
{
}
}
public class Child : Parent
{
[Obsolete("This method should not be used", true)]
public new void Method()
{
}
}

C# Virtual & Override Keywords

I thought I had this nailed, and then I go and look at some source at work and am left wondering why there are so many contradictions in what I read from msdn and what I am seeing in source....
My understanding is that the virtual keyword can be used in method declarations to allow any deriving classes to override it.
The override keyword would then need to be used in the derived class when implementing the superclass' virtual method....
For example:
public abstract class A
{
public virtual string GetName();
}
public class B:A
{
//assume there are some defined properties.
public override string GetName()
{
return FirstName;
}
}
I have a few questions:
1) Is it really necessary to define a method as virtual if it has no implementation? Surely it can just be overwritten in the subclass without the use of virtual and override?
2) If (1) is incorrect, am I right in thinking that every virtual method must be overridden in the subclass using it....
EDIT:
You're right my code will not compile... I want to know why....I uinderstand your answers but then I saw this:
public abstract class RequestHandler<TRequest, TResponse> : RequestHandler, IRequestHandler<TRequest>, IRequestHandler, IDisposable, ITypedRequestHandler
where TRequest : global::Agatha.Common.Request
where TResponse : global::Agatha.Common.Response, new()
{
protected RequestHandler();
public virtual void AfterHandle(TRequest request);
public virtual void BeforeHandle(TRequest request);
public override Response CreateDefaultResponse();
public TResponse CreateTypedResponse();
public override Response Handle(Request request);
public abstract Response Handle(TRequest request);
}
The above doesnt cause the compiler to complain...

Firstly the above code is invalid. A virtual method still has to have a body with a default implementation. to do what you have done above you would need to use the abstract keyaord instead of virtual.
abstract means that there is no method body provided but that any class deriving from it must implement this method (unless it is abstract too).
I think this pretty much answers your questions....
If it has no implementation then it cannot be virtual, it must be abstract. If it has an implementation that just does nothing then that must be implemented.
The whole point of a virtual class is that it has default behaviour so you can choose whether or not to override it. If it were abstract then you would have to override it (unless you were deriving another abstract class).

Is it really necessary to define a method as virtual if it has no implementation?
You can make the method abstract (it will implicitly make it virtual).
Surely it can just be overwritten in the subclass without the use of virtual and override?
If you just "overwrite" it without explicitly overriding it, it won't be the same method, and calling the method on a variable of the base class won't call the derived method (it won't participate in polymorphism). You would just be "hiding" the method of the base class (the compiler actually warns you about this, if it's really what you want to do you must use the new modifier.)
An example will make it clearer:
class B
{
public virtual void M() { Console.WriteLine("B.M") };
}
class D1 : Base
{
// Hides the base method
public new void M() { Console.WriteLine("D1.M") };
}
class D2 : Base
{
// Overrides the base method
public override void M() { Console.WriteLine("D2.M") };
}
...
D1 d1 = new D1();
d1.M(); // Prints "D1.M"
B b1 = d1;
b1.M(); // Prints "B.M", because D1.M doesn't override B.M
D2 d2 = new D1();
d2.M(); // Prints "D2.M"
B b2 = d2;
b2.M(); // Also prints "D2.M", because D2.M overrides B.M
If (1) is incorrect, am I right in thinking that every virtual method must be overridden in the subclass using it....
No, only if it's abstract... a virtual method can have an implementation, and in that case derived classes are not forced to override it.

1) Is it really necessary to define a method as virtual if it has no implementation? Surely it can just be overwritten in the subclass without the use of virtual and override?
As said in other answers, virtual methods need to have implementations. You are confusing it with abstract.
If you were asking whether virtual methods which do have an implementation need to be declared virtual: In C#, yes, it is necessary. In Java, you can override any old method. It was a C# design decision to require overriding to be specifically allowed with the virtual keyword, so that methods cannot be overridden unless intended by the programmer.
If the programmer has not expressed intent by not using virtual, you can still "override" methods, with the new keyword. However, this works a bit differently. Hopefully this code will help illustrate the concept:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var baseC = new BaseClass();
var extC = new ExtClass();
var lazyC = new LazyClass();
Console.WriteLine(baseC.NewMethod());
Console.WriteLine(baseC.VirtualOverrideMethod());
Console.WriteLine("---");
Console.WriteLine(extC.NewMethod());
Console.WriteLine(extC.VirtualOverrideMethod());
Console.WriteLine("---");
Console.WriteLine(((BaseClass) extC).NewMethod());
Console.WriteLine(((BaseClass) extC).VirtualOverrideMethod()); // Redundant typecast
Console.WriteLine("---");
Console.WriteLine(lazyC.VirtualOverrideMethod());
Console.ReadKey();
}
public class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass()
{
}
public string NewMethod()
{
return "NewMethod of BaseClass";
}
public virtual string VirtualOverrideMethod()
{
return "VirtualOverrideMethod of BaseClass";
}
}
class ExtClass : BaseClass
{
public new string NewMethod()
{
return "NewMethod of ExtClass";
}
public override string VirtualOverrideMethod()
{
return "VirtualOverrideMethod of ExtClass";
}
}
class LazyClass : BaseClass
{
}
}
Output:
NewMethod of BaseClass
VirtualOverrideMethod of BaseClass
---
NewMethod of ExtClass
VirtualOverrideMethod of ExtClass
---
NewMethod of BaseClass
VirtualOverrideMethod of ExtClass
---
VirtualOverrideMethod of BaseClass
2) If (1) is incorrect, am I right in thinking that every virtual method must be overridden in the subclass using it....
Not at all. virtual is a way of saying, "it's okay if you want to override this method". In fact, I included LazyClass in my code above to show this.
The above doesnt cause the compiler to complain...
I haven't used interfaces much, but that looks like one. In my code, if I change
class ExtClass : BaseClass
{
public new string NewMethod()
{
return "NewMethod of ExtClass";
}
public override string VirtualOverrideMethod()
{
return "VirtualOverrideMethod of ExtClass";
}
}
to:
class ExtClass : BaseClass
{
public new string NewMethod()
{
return "NewMethod of ExtClass";
}
public override string VirtualOverrideMethod()
{
return "VirtualOverrideMethod of ExtClass";
}
}
I get:
error CS0501: 'OverrideTest.Program.ExtClass.VirtualOverrideMethod()' must declare a body because it is not marked abstract, extern, or partial
From Visual Studio 2010. The same goes for the virtual method of my BaseClass.

The need for virtual is dictated by polymorphism. Think about what happens when you redefine a method in a subclass using new:
class Parent
{
void Foo() { Console.WriteLine("Parent"); }
virtual void Bar { Console.WriteLine("Parent"); }
}
class Child : Parent
{
new void Foo() { Console.WriteLine("Child"); } // another method Foo
override void Bar { Console.WriteLine("Child"); }
}
var child = new Child(); // a Child instance
var parent = (Parent)child; // same object, but statically typed as Parent
c.Bar(); // prints "Child"
p.Bar(); // again, prints "Child" -- expected virtual behavior
c.Foo(); // prints "Child"
p.Foo(); // but this prints "Parent"!!
For this reason, classes that are intended to be derived from (i.e. not sealed) should always mark the methods that can be overridden as virtual -- otherwise there will be confusing runtime behavior like above. There's no difference if the parent implementation actually does anything or not; the point is that it behaves differently.

ok, by declaring the method as virtual (and not wishing to override the method in the subclass), you'd be entering the world of method hiding if you were to introduce a method with the same name into the subclass. You have to define it as thus:
public abstract class A
{
public virtual string GetName()
{
return null;
}
}
public class B : A
{
//assume there are some defined properties.
public new string GetName()
{
return FirstName;
}
}
I'd recommend that you think of the abstract override approach:
public abstract class A
{
public abstract string GetName()
}
// to override
public class B : A
{
//assume there are some defined properties.
public override string GetName()
{
return FirstName;
}
}
this would be quite different. I would strongly recommend that you just override the abstract method in the subclass.
However, here's a quick ref on the subject (old but a good read):
http://www.akadia.com/services/dotnet_polymorphism.html

1) Is it really necessary to define a method as virtual if it has no
implementation? Surely it can just be overwritten in the subclass
without the use of virtual and override?
You can use an abstract methods, that have no body, but they if you derive from that class you must to override that method. All abstact methods have to be overriden in child class.
2) If (1) is incorrect, am I right in thinking that every virtual
method must be overridden in the subclass using it....
No, instead, you can use a virtual keyword to have an implementation inside that, but do not making override in a child class mandatory. Gives you more flexibility, from that point of view.
Usauly they use abstract to create rigid constrains for childs, so every child derived from it must implement specified member of base class.

That's exactly the difference between a virtual and an abstract method:
A virtual method can be overridden by derived classes if the choose to. A virtual method may or may not have a default implementation for inheritors to call into, which is done using the base keyword.
An abstract method must be overridden by derived classes. Its constraints are:
It can only be defined in an abstract class.
It cannot have an implementation, since it's up to the inheritors to define its behavior.

Inheritence in C# question - is overriding internal methods possible?

Is it possible to override an internal method's behavior?
using System;
class TestClass
{
public string Name { get { return this.ProtectedMethod(); } }
protected string ProtectedMethod()
{
return InternalMethod();
}
string InternalMethod()
{
return "TestClass::InternalMethod()";
}
}
class OverrideClassProgram : TestClass
{ // try to override the internal method ? (doesn't work)
string InternalMethod()
{
return "OverrideClassProgram::InternalMethod()";
}
static int Main(string[] args)
{
// TestClass::InternalMethod()
Console.WriteLine(new TestClass().Name);
// TestClass::InternalMethod() ?? are we just screwed?
Console.WriteLine(new OverrideClassProgram().Name);
return (int)Console.ReadKey().Key;
}
}

I think you've got something confused here. There is an actual keyword "internal", is this what you want?
internal string InternalMethod()
{
return "TestClass::InternalMethod()";
}
But I think what you're really looking for is the "virtual" keyword. This allows you to do an override:
Parent Class
protected virtual string InternalMethod()
{
return "TestClass::InternalMethod()";
}
Child Class
protected override string InternalMethod()
{
return "TestProgram::InternalMethod()";
}
Using the "new" keyword is valid, but it completely reimplements the method. I.e. it breaks polymorphism.
Edit:
Here's a link.

In Java everything is virtual unless it is static/final. In C# you have to explicitly declare an instance method as virtual and then that method cannot be private. This article explains why.
By default all members of a class are private, so if you do not provide an access modifier (other than private of course) the InternalMethod() method in your example is private and cannot be virtual and thus cannot be overridden.
You must change it's access modifier and mark it as virtual and in the child class you must override it for the code to work the way you want it too.

This may not answer your question, but just to add a cent.
Internal denotes that types or members are accessible only within files in the same assembly. They are public to the assembly but having access slightly less than the public in actual.
MSDN Access Modifiers,
A common use of internal access is in
component-based development because it
enables a group of components to
cooperate in a private manner without
being exposed to the rest of the
application code. For example, a
framework for building graphical user
interfaces could provide Control and
Form classes that cooperate using
members with internal access. Since
these members are internal, they are
not exposed to code that is using the
framework

Try using the override keyword ... the new keyword is to call a class constuctor

Sure, it's possible, but in order to override a method, the method needs to be virtual or abstract, same as any other visibility.
class Base
{
internal virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo from Base");
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
internal override void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo from Derived");
}
}
When you use the new keyword, it's called method hiding, which is not the same thing. If I write this:
class Base
{
internal void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo from Base");
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
internal new void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo from Derived");
}
}
static void Main()
{
Base b = new Derived();
b.Foo();
}
Then it will execute the Base Foo method, not Derived. In other words it will print Foo from Base. In the first case, it would still have executed the Derived method and printed Foo from Derived.