How to call base.base.method()?

Viewed 128988
// 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.");
    }
}
13 Answers

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.

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;
        }
    }
}
Related