class Interface{}; class Foo: public Interface{}; class Bar{ public:开发者_开发技巧 vector<Interface*> getStuff();
Is there a reason why std::type_info is specified to be polymorphic? The destructor is specified to be virtual (and there\'s a comment to the effect of \"so that it\'s polymorphic\" in The Design and
I want to have the following setup: abstract class Parent { public static String ACONSTANT; // I\'d use abstract here if it was allowed
Is there any specific reason why Java uses early binding for overloaded m开发者_Go百科ethods? Wouldn\'t it be possible to use late binding for this?
Ok I admit it, I\'m a total C++ noob. I was checking the book Data Structures and algorithms in C++ by Adam Drozdek, in the section 1.5 : \"Polymorphism\" he proposes the next example:
I have the following class, which as you will see has rather a rather redundant formatNameAndAddress method:
In C++ I have an array of pointers to Player objects and want to fill it with Fickle objects where Fickle is a class that is derived from Player. This is because I want a general Player array that I c
I have an attribute table like the following Attributes attributeidbackendtypecodedisplayname 1intsizeProduct Size
I always think of having to use pointers for polymorphism. Using the canonical example: DrawEngine::render(Shape *shape)
Because of my device I can\'t use virtual functions. Suppose I have: class Base { void doSomething() { }
加载中,请稍侯......