你希望完成什么?只是提供一些功能?

c++惯用的方法是编写一些实现该功能的自由函数。有可能您实际上并不需要std::vector，特别是对于您正在实现的功能，这意味着您实际上通过尝试继承std::vector而失去了可重用性。

我强烈建议您查看标准库和标头，并思考它们是如何工作的。

There is no reason to inherit from std::vector unless one wants to make a class that works differently than std::vector, because it handles in its own way the hidden details of std::vector's definition, or unless one has ideological reasons to use the objects of such class in place of std::vector's ones. However, the creators of the standard on C++ did not provide std::vector with any interface (in the form of protected members) that such inherited class could take advantage of in order to improve the vector in a specific way. Indeed, they had no way to think of any specific aspect that might need extension or fine-tune additional implementation, so they did not need to think of providing any such interface for any purpose.

The reasons for the second option can be only ideological, because std::vectors are not polymorphic, and otherwise there is no difference whether you expose std::vector's public interface via public inheritance or via public membership. (Suppose you need to keep some state in your object so you cannot get away with free functions). On a less sound note and from the ideological point of view, it appears that std::vectors are a kind of "simple idea", so any complexity in the form of objects of different possible classes in their place ideologically makes no use.

是的，它是安全的，只要你小心不做不安全的事情……我想我从来没有见过有人用向量new，所以在实践中你可能没问题。然而，这并不是c++....中的常用习语

你能提供更多关于算法的信息吗?

有时你在设计上走了一条路，然后看不到你可能走的其他道路——你声称需要用10种新算法来做矢量，这一事实给我敲响了警钟——矢量真的可以实现10种通用算法吗?或者你试图做一个对象，它既是通用矢量，又包含特定的应用程序功能?

我当然不是说你不应该这样做，只是你所提供的信息敲响了警钟，这让我认为也许你的抽象是有问题的，有更好的方法来实现你想要的。

我认为很少有规则是应该百分之百地盲从的。听起来你已经考虑了很多，并且相信这是一条正确的道路。所以——除非有人提出很好的具体理由不这样做——我认为你应该继续你的计划。

在这里，让我再介绍两种做你想做的事的方法。一种是包装std::vector的另一种方法，另一种是继承而不给用户破坏任何东西的方法:

让我添加另一种包装std::vector的方式，而无需编写大量的函数包装器。

#include <utility> // For std:: forward struct Derived: protected std::vector<T> { // Anything... using underlying_t = std::vector<T>; auto* get_underlying() noexcept { return static_cast<underlying_t*>(this); } auto* get_underlying() const noexcept { return static_cast<underlying_t*>(this); } template <class Ret, class ...Args> auto apply_to_underlying_class(Ret (*underlying_t::member_f)(Args...), Args &&...args) { return (get_underlying()->*member_f)(std::forward<Args>(args)...); } }; Inheriting from std::span instead of std::vector and avoid the dtor problem.

如果你正在考虑这个问题，那么你显然已经把办公室里的语言书呆子都干掉了。有了他们，为什么不直接做呢

struct MyVector
{
   std::vector<Thingy> v;  // public!
   void func1( ... ) ; // and so on
}

这将避免所有可能出现的错误，可能会意外地向上转换你的MyVector类，你仍然可以访问所有的向量操作，只需添加一个小.v。