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.

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。

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。

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.

不从std::vector公开继承的主要原因是缺少虚析构函数，这有效地阻止了您多态地使用后代。特别是，你不允许删除std::vector<T>*，它实际上指向一个派生对象(即使派生类没有添加成员)，但编译器通常不能警告你。

在这些条件下允许私有继承。因此，我建议使用私有继承并从父方法转发所需的方法，如下所示。

class AdVector: private std::vector<double>
{
    typedef double T;
    typedef std::vector<double> vector;
public:
    using vector::push_back;
    using vector::operator[];
    using vector::begin;
    using vector::end;
    AdVector operator*(const AdVector & ) const;
    AdVector operator+(const AdVector & ) const;
    AdVector();
    virtual ~AdVector();
};

您应该首先考虑重构您的算法，以抽象它们所操作的容器类型，并将它们保留为自由模板函数，正如大多数回答者所指出的那样。这通常是通过让算法接受一对迭代器而不是容器作为参数来实现的。

实际上:如果派生类中没有任何数据成员，就不会有任何问题，甚至在多态使用中也不会。只有在基类和派生类的大小不同和/或有虚函数(即v-table)时，才需要虚析构函数。

但在理论上:来自c++ 0x FCD中的[expr.delete]:在第一个替代方案(删除对象)中，如果要删除的对象的静态类型与其动态类型不同，则静态类型应是要删除的对象的动态类型的基类，并且静态类型应具有虚析构函数或行为未定义。

但是你可以从std::vector中私有地派生而没有问题。 我使用了以下模式:

class PointVector : private std::vector<PointType>
{
    typedef std::vector<PointType> Vector;
    ...
    using Vector::at;
    using Vector::clear;
    using Vector::iterator;
    using Vector::const_iterator;
    using Vector::begin;
    using Vector::end;
    using Vector::cbegin;
    using Vector::cend;
    using Vector::crbegin;
    using Vector::crend;
    using Vector::empty;
    using Vector::size;
    using Vector::reserve;
    using Vector::operator[];
    using Vector::assign;
    using Vector::insert;
    using Vector::erase;
    using Vector::front;
    using Vector::back;
    using Vector::push_back;
    using Vector::pop_back;
    using Vector::resize;
    ...