Idiomatic way to prevent slicing? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InForce...

Is there a symbol for a right arrow with a square in the middle?

How to type this arrow in math mode?

Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?

The difference between dialogue marks

How come people say “Would of”?

Is this app Icon Browser Safe/Legit?

What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?

Right tool to dig six foot holes?

Is three citations per paragraph excessive for undergraduate research paper?

Multiply Two Integer Polynomials

Can a flute soloist sit?

Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?

During Temple times, who can butcher a kosher animal?

Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?

Does the shape of a die affect the probability of a number being rolled?

Shouldn't "much" here be used instead of "more"?

A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky

What are the motivations for publishing new editions of an existing textbook, beyond new discoveries in a field?

Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?

Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?

Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?

Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?

Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible?

FPGA - DIY Programming



Idiomatic way to prevent slicing?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InForce function to be called only with specific typesWhat's the best way to trim std::string?What is object slicing?What's the point of g++ -Wreorder?Easiest way to convert int to string in C++Does the C++ spec allow an instance of a non-virtual class to include memory for a vtable pointer?capture variables inside of subclass?Detecting if a type can be derived from in C++C++ overload function by return typeIs using inline classes inside a function permitted to be used as template types?Short-circuit evaluation and assignment in C++





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







10















Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



#include <iostream>
struct foo { int a; };
struct bar : foo { int b; };

int main() {
bar x{1,2};
foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!
}


This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










share|improve this question































    10















    Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



    #include <iostream>
    struct foo { int a; };
    struct bar : foo { int b; };

    int main() {
    bar x{1,2};
    foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!
    }


    This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



    What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










    share|improve this question



























      10












      10








      10


      3






      Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



      #include <iostream>
      struct foo { int a; };
      struct bar : foo { int b; };

      int main() {
      bar x{1,2};
      foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!
      }


      This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



      What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










      share|improve this question
















      Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



      #include <iostream>
      struct foo { int a; };
      struct bar : foo { int b; };

      int main() {
      bar x{1,2};
      foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!
      }


      This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



      What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?







      c++ inheritance object-slicing






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      rrauenza

      3,56921835




      3,56921835










      asked yesterday









      user463035818user463035818

      18.8k42971




      18.8k42971
























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          13














          I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



          struct foo 
          {
          int a;
          foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

          template<typename T>
          foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

          template<typename T>
          foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
          };


          then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

            – eerorika
            yesterday











          • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

            – user463035818
            yesterday






          • 1





            @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

            – NathanOliver
            yesterday






          • 3





            I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

            – NathanOliver
            yesterday













          • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

            – user463035818
            17 hours ago



















          5














          Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



          #include <iostream>
          struct foo { int a; };
          struct bar : foo { int b; };

          int main() {
          bar x{1,2};
          auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
          }


          If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



          Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



          #include <iostream>

          struct foo { int a; };
          struct bar
          {
          bar(int a, int b)
          : foo_(a)
          , b(b)
          {}

          int b;

          int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

          private:
          foo foo_;
          };

          int main() {
          bar x{1,2};
          // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

          }


          Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



          #include <iostream>

          struct foo {
          int a;
          protected:
          foo(foo const&) = default;
          foo(foo&&) = default;
          foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
          foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

          };

          struct bar : foo
          {
          bar(int a, int b)
          : foo{a}, b{b}
          {}

          int b;
          };

          int main() {
          auto x = bar (1,2);
          // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
          }





          share|improve this answer































            3














            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo {
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            };





            share|improve this answer



















            • 4





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              yesterday












            Your Answer






            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            });
            });
            }, "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "1"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55600025%2fidiomatic-way-to-prevent-slicing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            13














            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 
            {
            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            };


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






            share|improve this answer


























            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              yesterday











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              yesterday






            • 1





              @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

              – NathanOliver
              yesterday






            • 3





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              yesterday













            • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

              – user463035818
              17 hours ago
















            13














            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 
            {
            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            };


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






            share|improve this answer


























            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              yesterday











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              yesterday






            • 1





              @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

              – NathanOliver
              yesterday






            • 3





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              yesterday













            • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

              – user463035818
              17 hours ago














            13












            13








            13







            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 
            {
            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            };


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






            share|improve this answer















            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 
            {
            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            };


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered yesterday









            NathanOliverNathanOliver

            98.5k16138218




            98.5k16138218













            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              yesterday











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              yesterday






            • 1





              @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

              – NathanOliver
              yesterday






            • 3





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              yesterday













            • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

              – user463035818
              17 hours ago



















            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              yesterday











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              yesterday






            • 1





              @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

              – NathanOliver
              yesterday






            • 3





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              yesterday













            • actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

              – user463035818
              17 hours ago

















            Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

            – eerorika
            yesterday





            Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

            – eerorika
            yesterday













            if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

            – user463035818
            yesterday





            if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

            – user463035818
            yesterday




            1




            1





            @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

            – NathanOliver
            yesterday





            @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

            – NathanOliver
            yesterday




            3




            3





            I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

            – NathanOliver
            yesterday







            I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

            – NathanOliver
            yesterday















            actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

            – user463035818
            17 hours ago





            actually I was a bit hestitant to accept this answer. The technique is great, but in fact it opens the door to specializing all kinds of unwanted assignments, though if I have to choose between the javaish "protect against every possible stupidity at any cost" vs a pythonic "we are all adults" then I know what to pick ;)

            – user463035818
            17 hours ago













            5














            Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



            #include <iostream>
            struct foo { int a; };
            struct bar : foo { int b; };

            int main() {
            bar x{1,2};
            auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
            }


            If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



            Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



            #include <iostream>

            struct foo { int a; };
            struct bar
            {
            bar(int a, int b)
            : foo_(a)
            , b(b)
            {}

            int b;

            int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

            private:
            foo foo_;
            };

            int main() {
            bar x{1,2};
            // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

            }


            Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



            #include <iostream>

            struct foo {
            int a;
            protected:
            foo(foo const&) = default;
            foo(foo&&) = default;
            foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
            foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

            };

            struct bar : foo
            {
            bar(int a, int b)
            : foo{a}, b{b}
            {}

            int b;
            };

            int main() {
            auto x = bar (1,2);
            // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
            }





            share|improve this answer




























              5














              Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



              #include <iostream>
              struct foo { int a; };
              struct bar : foo { int b; };

              int main() {
              bar x{1,2};
              auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
              }


              If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



              Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



              #include <iostream>

              struct foo { int a; };
              struct bar
              {
              bar(int a, int b)
              : foo_(a)
              , b(b)
              {}

              int b;

              int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

              private:
              foo foo_;
              };

              int main() {
              bar x{1,2};
              // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

              }


              Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



              #include <iostream>

              struct foo {
              int a;
              protected:
              foo(foo const&) = default;
              foo(foo&&) = default;
              foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
              foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

              };

              struct bar : foo
              {
              bar(int a, int b)
              : foo{a}, b{b}
              {}

              int b;
              };

              int main() {
              auto x = bar (1,2);
              // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
              }





              share|improve this answer


























                5












                5








                5







                Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



                #include <iostream>
                struct foo { int a; };
                struct bar : foo { int b; };

                int main() {
                bar x{1,2};
                auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
                }


                If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



                Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo { int a; };
                struct bar
                {
                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo_(a)
                , b(b)
                {}

                int b;

                int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

                private:
                foo foo_;
                };

                int main() {
                bar x{1,2};
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

                }


                Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo {
                int a;
                protected:
                foo(foo const&) = default;
                foo(foo&&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

                };

                struct bar : foo
                {
                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo{a}, b{b}
                {}

                int b;
                };

                int main() {
                auto x = bar (1,2);
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
                }





                share|improve this answer













                Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



                #include <iostream>
                struct foo { int a; };
                struct bar : foo { int b; };

                int main() {
                bar x{1,2};
                auto y = x; // <- y is a bar
                }


                If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



                Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo { int a; };
                struct bar
                {
                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo_(a)
                , b(b)
                {}

                int b;

                int get_a() const { return foo_.a; }

                private:
                foo foo_;
                };

                int main() {
                bar x{1,2};
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile

                }


                Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo {
                int a;
                protected:
                foo(foo const&) = default;
                foo(foo&&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

                };

                struct bar : foo
                {
                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo{a}, b{b}
                {}

                int b;
                };

                int main() {
                auto x = bar (1,2);
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile
                }






                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                Richard HodgesRichard Hodges

                57k658105




                57k658105























                    3














                    You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



                    struct foo {
                    // ...
                    protected:
                    foo(foo&) = default;
                    };





                    share|improve this answer



















                    • 4





                      but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

                      – user463035818
                      yesterday
















                    3














                    You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



                    struct foo {
                    // ...
                    protected:
                    foo(foo&) = default;
                    };





                    share|improve this answer



















                    • 4





                      but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

                      – user463035818
                      yesterday














                    3












                    3








                    3







                    You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



                    struct foo {
                    // ...
                    protected:
                    foo(foo&) = default;
                    };





                    share|improve this answer













                    You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



                    struct foo {
                    // ...
                    protected:
                    foo(foo&) = default;
                    };






                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered yesterday









                    eerorikaeerorika

                    89.9k664136




                    89.9k664136








                    • 4





                      but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

                      – user463035818
                      yesterday














                    • 4





                      but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

                      – user463035818
                      yesterday








                    4




                    4





                    but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

                    – user463035818
                    yesterday





                    but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

                    – user463035818
                    yesterday


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55600025%2fidiomatic-way-to-prevent-slicing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

                    Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

                    Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...