Conversion from Derived** to Base**

I was reading this and unfortunately could not understand in depth why the compiler does not allow conversion from Derived** to Base**. Also I have seen this which gives no more info than the parashift.com's link.

EDIT:

Let us analyze this code line by line:

   Car   car;
   Car*  carPtr = &car;
   Car** carPtrPtr = &carPtr;
   //MyComment: Until now there is no problem!

   Vehicle** vehiclePtrPtr = carPtrPtr;  // This is an error in C++
   //MyComment: Here compiler gives me an error! And I try to understand why. 
   //MyComment: Let us consider that it was allowed. So what?? Let's go ahead!

   NuclearSubmarine  sub;
   NuclearSubmarine* subPtr = ⊂
   //MyComment: this two line are OK too!

   *vehiclePtrPtr = subPtr;

   //MyComment: the important part comes here... *vehiclePtrPtr is a pointer to
   //MyComment: a vehicle, particularly in our case it points to a Car object.
   //MyComment: Now when I assign to the pointer to the Car object *vehiclePtrPtr,
   //MyComment: a pointer to NuclearSubmarine, then it should just point to the
   //MyComment: NuclearSubmarine object as it is indeed a pointer to a Vehicle,
   //MyComment: isn't it? Where is my fault? Where I am wrong?

   // This last line would have caused carPtr to point to sub!
   carPtr->openGasCap();  // This might call fireNuclearMissle()!

It's basically the same reason why a bowl of bananas is not a bowl of fruits. If a bowl of bananas were a bowl of fruits, you could put an apple into the bowl, and it would no longer be a bowl of bananas.

As long as you only inspect the bowl, the conversion is harmless. But as soon as you start modifying it, the conversion becomes unsafe. This is the key point to bear in mind. (This is the precise reason why the immutable Scala collections actually allow the conversion, but the mutable collections prohibit it.)

Same with your example. If there was a conversion from Derived** to Base**, you could put a pointer to an apple were the type system promised only a pointer to a banana could exist. Boom!

There are no shortage of senseless errors this would permit:

class Flutist : public Musician
...

class Pianist : public Musician
...

void VeryBad(Flutist **f, Pianist **p)
{
 Musician **m1=f;
 Musician **m2=p;
 *m1=*m2; // Oh no! **f is supposed to be a Flutist and it's a Pianist!
}

Here is a full working example:

#include <stdio.h>

class Musician
{
 public:
 Musician(void) { ; }
 virtual void Play(void)=0;
};

class Pianist : public Musician
{
 public:
 Pianist(void) { ; }
 virtual void Play(void) { printf("The piano blares\n"); }
};

class Flutist : public Musician
{
 public:
 Flutist(void) { ; }
 virtual void Play(void) { printf("The flute sounds.\n"); }
};

void VeryBad(Flutist **f, Pianist **p)
{
 Musician **m1=f;
 Musician **m2=p;
 *m1=*m2; // Oh no! **f is supposed to be a Flutist and it's a Pianist!
}

int main(void)
{
 Flutist *f=new Flutist();
 Pianist *p=new Pianist();
 VeryBad(&f, &p);
 printf("Mom is asleep, but flute playing wont bother her.\n");
 f->Play(); // Since f is a Flutist* this can't possibly play piano, can it?
}

And here it is in action:

$ g++ -fpermissive verybad.cpp -o verybad
verybad.cpp: In function void VeryBad(Flutist**, Pianist**):
verybad.cpp:26:20: warning: invalid conversion from Flutist** to Musician** [-fpermissive]
verybad.cpp:27:20: warning: invalid conversion from Pianist** to Musician** [-fpermissive]
$ ./verybad 
Mom is asleep, but flute playing wont bother her.
The piano blares