国产av日韩一区二区三区精品,成人性爱视频在线观看,国产,欧美,日韩,一区,www.成色av久久成人,2222eeee成人天堂

First clarify the "abstract class". It should be pointed out that abstract classes cannot be instantiated, but classes that cannot be instantiated are not necessarily abstract classes. For example:

class A {
private:
   A(){ }
   A(A&) { }
};

This is not called an abstract class because it does not contain pure virtual functions. If you want to use a class name to declare an object, it will not compile. This is the "prohibition of creating stack objects" mentioned in your question.
But such a class is useful, add some code to it, such as

class A {
public:
    static A& getInstance(){
        static A a;
        return a;
    }
    void hello() { }
private:
   A(){ }
   A(A&) { }
};

Although objects cannot be declared outside class A, it is completely possible within A itself, and then others can use it like this:

A::getInstance().hello();

This is the famous "single case pattern".

In C++, the definition of an abstract class is a class that contains pure virtual functions, such as

class Abstract
{
    virtual void foo() = 0;
};

The so-called abstract class cannot instantiate objects, which refers to

Abstract a;
Abstract *pA = new Abstract();

An error will be reported during compilation.

And "a class that only defines a protected constructor is also an abstract class" is actually wrong. In other words, if this sentence is correct, then the abstract class here is a generalized abstract class, which means that here The abstract class borrows Java's saying that a class that cannot instantiate objects is considered an "abstract class". Because abstract classes are created to describe interfaces, and if the constructor is not a public class, the meaning of its existence may not be to accurately describe the interface.
For specific examples, please refer to the singleton description of jk_v1. For C++ abstract classes, you cannot create an instance.