在我看来，使用访问者模式或直接修改每个元素结构添加新操作的工作量大致相同。此外，如果我要添加新的元素类，比如Cow，操作接口将受到影响，并且这将传播到所有现有的元素类，因此需要重新编译所有元素类。那么重点是什么呢?

我不太熟悉来客模式。看看我做得对不对。假设你有一个动物等级

class Animal {  };
class Dog: public Animal {  };
class Cat: public Animal {  };

(假设它是一个具有良好接口的复杂层次结构。)

现在我们想要向层次结构添加一个新操作，即我们想要每个动物发出它的声音。既然层次结构这么简单，你可以直接用多态性来实现:

class Animal
{ public: virtual void makeSound() = 0; };

class Dog : public Animal
{ public: void makeSound(); };

void Dog::makeSound()
{ std::cout << "woof!\n"; }

class Cat : public Animal
{ public: void makeSound(); };

void Cat::makeSound()
{ std::cout << "meow!\n"; }

但是按照这种方式进行，每次想要添加操作时，都必须修改到层次结构中每个类的接口。现在，假设您对原始界面感到满意，并且希望对其进行尽可能少的修改。

访问者模式允许您在合适的类中移动每个新操作，并且您只需要扩展层次结构的接口一次。我们开始吧。首先，我们定义了一个抽象操作(GoF中的“Visitor”类)，它对层次结构中的每个类都有一个方法:

class Operation
{
public:
    virtual void hereIsADog(Dog *d) = 0;
    virtual void hereIsACat(Cat *c) = 0;
};

然后，我们修改层次结构以接受新的操作:

class Animal
{ public: virtual void letsDo(Operation *v) = 0; };

class Dog : public Animal
{ public: void letsDo(Operation *v); };

void Dog::letsDo(Operation *v)
{ v->hereIsADog(this); }

class Cat : public Animal
{ public: void letsDo(Operation *v); };

void Cat::letsDo(Operation *v)
{ v->hereIsACat(this); }

最后，我们实现了实际的操作，没有修改Cat和Dog:

class Sound : public Operation
{
public:
    void hereIsADog(Dog *d);
    void hereIsACat(Cat *c);
};

void Sound::hereIsADog(Dog *d)
{ std::cout << "woof!\n"; }

void Sound::hereIsACat(Cat *c)
{ std::cout << "meow!\n"; }

现在，您可以在不修改层次结构的情况下添加操作。 下面是它的工作原理:

int main()
{
    Cat c;
    Sound theSound;
    c.letsDo(&theSound);
}

使用访问者模式至少有三个很好的理由:

减少代码的增殖，当数据结构发生变化时，代码只会略有不同。 将相同的计算应用于多个数据结构，而不改变实现计算的代码。 在不更改遗留代码的情况下向遗留库添加信息。

请看看我写的一篇关于这方面的文章。

Cay Horstmann在他的OO设计和模式书中有一个很好的例子，说明了在哪里应用Visitor。他总结了这个问题:

复合对象通常具有复杂的结构，由单个元素组成。有些元素可能也有子元素. ...元素上的操作访问它的子元素，对它们应用该操作，并将结果组合在一起. ...然而，向这样的设计中添加新的操作并不容易。

不容易的原因是，操作是在结构类本身中添加的。例如，假设你有一个文件系统:

下面是一些我们可能想用这个结构实现的操作(功能):

显示节点元素的名称(一个文件列表) 显示计算出的节点元素大小(其中目录的大小包括其所有子元素的大小) 等。

You could add functions to each class in the FileSystem to implement the operations (and people have done this in the past as it's very obvious how to do it). The problem is that whenever you add a new functionality (the "etc." line above), you might need to add more and more methods to the structure classes. At some point, after some number of operations you've added to your software, the methods in those classes don't make sense anymore in terms of the classes' functional cohesion. For example, you have a FileNode that has a method calculateFileColorForFunctionABC() in order to implement the latest visualization functionality on the file system.

The Visitor Pattern (like many design patterns) was born from the pain and suffering of developers who knew there was a better way to allow their code to change without requiring a lot of changes everywhere and also respecting good design principles (high cohesion, low coupling). It's my opinion that it's hard to understand the usefulness of a lot of patterns until you've felt that pain. Explaining the pain (like we attempt to do above with the "etc." functionalities that get added) takes up space in the explanation and is a distraction. Understanding patterns is hard for this reason.

Visitor allows us to decouple the functionalities on the data structure (e.g., FileSystemNodes) from the data structures themselves. The pattern allows the design to respect cohesion -- data structure classes are simpler (they have fewer methods) and also the functionalities are encapsulated into Visitor implementations. This is done via double-dispatching (which is the complicated part of the pattern): using accept() methods in the structure classes and visitX() methods in the Visitor (the functionality) classes:

这个结构允许我们添加新的功能，这些功能作为具体的访问者在结构上工作(不需要改变结构类)。

例如，PrintNameVisitor实现目录列表功能，PrintSizeVisitor实现具有大小的版本。我们可以想象有一天有一个以XML生成数据的“ExportXMLVisitor”，或者另一个以JSON生成数据的访问者，等等。我们甚至可以让一个访问者使用图形化语言(如DOT)显示我的目录树，然后用另一个程序进行可视化。

最后要注意的是:Visitor的双重分派的复杂性意味着它更难以理解、编码和调试。简而言之，它有很高的极客因素，违背了KISS原则。在研究人员进行的一项调查中，访问者被证明是一个有争议的模式(关于它的有用性没有达成共识)。一些实验甚至表明，它并没有使代码更容易维护。

我真的很喜欢http://python-3-patterns-idioms-test.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Visitor.html上的描述和例子。

The assumption is that you have a primary class hierarchy that is fixed; perhaps it’s from another vendor and you can’t make changes to that hierarchy. However, your intent is that you’d like to add new polymorphic methods to that hierarchy, which means that normally you’d have to add something to the base class interface. So the dilemma is that you need to add methods to the base class, but you can’t touch the base class. How do you get around this? The design pattern that solves this kind of problem is called a “visitor” (the final one in the Design Patterns book), and it builds on the double dispatching scheme shown in the last section. The visitor pattern allows you to extend the interface of the primary type by creating a separate class hierarchy of type Visitor to virtualize the operations performed upon the primary type. The objects of the primary type simply “accept” the visitor, then call the visitor’s dynamically-bound member function.

虽然我知道如何做，何时做，但我一直不明白为什么。为了对有c++等语言背景的人有所帮助，请仔细阅读本文。

对于懒惰的人，我们使用访问者模式，因为“虽然在c++中虚函数是动态分派的，但函数重载是静态完成的”。

或者，换句话说，当你传递一个实际绑定到ApolloSpacecraft对象的飞船引用时，确保CollideWith(ApolloSpacecraft&)被调用。

class SpaceShip {};
class ApolloSpacecraft : public SpaceShip {};
class ExplodingAsteroid : public Asteroid {
public:
  virtual void CollideWith(SpaceShip&) {
    cout << "ExplodingAsteroid hit a SpaceShip" << endl;
  }
  virtual void CollideWith(ApolloSpacecraft&) {
    cout << "ExplodingAsteroid hit an ApolloSpacecraft" << endl;
  }
}