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.

我最近也继承了std::vector，发现它非常有用，到目前为止我还没有遇到任何问题。

我的类是一个稀疏矩阵类，这意味着我需要在某个地方存储我的矩阵元素，即在std::vector中。我继承的原因是我有点太懒了，不愿意为所有的方法编写接口，而且我正在通过SWIG将类接口到Python，其中已经有std::vector的良好接口代码。我发现将这个接口代码扩展到我的类中要比从头开始编写一个新代码容易得多。

这种方法的唯一问题不是非虚析构函数，而是一些我想重载的其他方法，比如push_back()、resize()、insert()等。私人继承的确是一个不错的选择。

谢谢!

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。

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。

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.