Want this question answered?
The private, protected and public keywords are used to modify the access specifiers of class or struct members. Unless otherwise specified, class members are private by default, while struct members are public by default. Private members of a class are only accessible to members and to friends of that class. Protected members are the same as private members, but are also accessible to derived classes. Public members have unrestricted access. The private, protected and public access specifiers can also be used to modify the type of inheritance that applies to a derived class. Private inheritance means all public and protected members of the base class become private members of the derived class. Protected inheritance means all public members of the base class become protected members of the derived class. Public inheritance means all public and protected members of the base class remain public and protected members of the derived class. Private members of the base class are never inherited by derived classes. A derived class or one or more of its member functions may be declared a friend of the base class, thus permitting private access, but you would never do this unless the hierarchy were a closed, static hierarchy where all derivatives can be determined at compile time. Dynamically bound derivatives of unknown origin cannot be declared friends.
No, accessor member functions are a sign of good class design, particularly in terms of data encapsulation.
revamped of public distribution system means that govt. is doing or has done how many changes in the public distribution system for the poor society of the india.some of the examles of are mid day meal scheme,annapurna scheme, etc.
The only way that private attributes of a base class can be accessed by a derived class (protected or public) is through a protected or public method in the base class. The protected or public method is the interface through which access to the attributes is defined and controlled.
It is exactly what it says it is: a pointer to a base class. The assumption is that you have an object to a derived class, but actually hold a pointer to its base class. The following minimal example demonstrates this: class base{ public: virtual ~base(){} }; class derived: public base{}; int main() { base* p = new derived; // base class pointer to a derived instance. delete( p ); return(0); } Note that derived has an "is-a" relationship with base (derived is a base), thus the above code is perfectly legal. Moreover, because the base class destructor is declared virtual, when you delete p you automatically destroy the instance of derived before the instance of base, thus ensuring a clean teardown (without a virtual destructor, a dangling reference to derived would be left behind, which will only lead to problems further down the line). Taking things further, calling any virtual methods upon the base class automatically invokes the override in your derived class, thus ensuring that your derived class behaves accordingly, polymorphically, even though you only hold a pointer to the base class. In other words, the base class provides a generic interface that is common to all its derivatives, and you can call those generic methods via the base class pointer without ever needing to know the actual derived type. Remember that base classes should never know anything about their derivatives since a new derivative could be created at any time in the future and would therefore be impossible to predict in advance. But so long as the derivative makes use of the virtual functions (the generic interface) provided by the base class, there is never any need to know the actual type. The derivative's own v-table takes care of that for you, thus completely eliminating the need for expensive runtime type information and dynamic downcasts (which is always a sign of poor class design). This then makes it possible for your derived class overrides to call non-generic methods, thus extorting non-generic behaviour from what is essentially a generic, base class pointer.
Gregory C. Weeks has written: 'Women, work, and public assistance' -- subject(s): Employment, Welfare recipients, Poor women, Public welfare 'Leaving public assistance in Washington State' -- subject(s): Employment, Welfare recipients, Poor women, Public welfare
Doris Yokelson has written: 'Public attitudes toward poverty and the characteristics of the poor and near poor' -- subject(s): Attitudes, Domestic Economic assistance, Poor, Public opinion
recruited more heavily among working class and poor people
In effect, yes. Child support cannot be garnished from public assistance payments (including SSI), and if you're poor enough to be eligible for public assistance, you probably don't have any other income/assets worth noting.
recruited more heavily among working class and poor people
They were responsible for providing Social Services such as poor houses, orphanages and public assistance.
Paul Glewwe has written: 'Targeting assistance to the poor' -- subject(s): Poor, Economic assistance
Most government institutions--public school, public health, environmental laws, regulations on businesses, most taxes, public works, aid to the poor. Also they would eliminate "victimless crimes" and legalize prostitution and recreational drugs.
just ask if they need any financial assistance...
yes, the bottom 20% are granted assistance. so by definition, most "poor" people do
In the early Roman Republic the plebeians were the poor, working class people.In the early Roman republic the plebeians were the poor, working class people.In the early Roman republic the plebeians were the poor, working class people.In the early Roman republic the plebeians were the poor, working class people.In the early Roman republic the plebeians were the poor, working class people.In the early Roman republic the plebeians were the poor, working class people.In the early Roman republic the plebeians were the poor, working class people.In the early Roman republic the plebeians were the poor, working class people.In the early Roman republic the plebeians were the poor, working class people.
The anti-federalists consisted if majority of the US population (lower-class, poor).