Which statement about constructors of abstract classes in C++ is correct?
class Base
{
public:
Base()
{
cout << "Base";
}
virtual void show() = 0;
};
Options
-
A.
An abstract class cannot have a constructor.
-
B.
An abstract class can have a constructor.
-
C.
A constructor makes the class non-abstract.
-
D.
More than one of the above
-
E.
None of the above
Correct Answer (Detailed Explanation is Below)
B.
An abstract class can have a constructor.
Detailed Explanation
Answer: (B) An abstract class can have a constructor.
An abstract class can have a constructor even though an object of the abstract class cannot be created directly.
The constructor of the abstract base class can be executed as part of constructing an object of a derived class.
Having a constructor does not remove the abstract nature of the class. The class remains abstract as long as it contains at least one pure virtual function.
