题目内容
有如下类定义： class MyBase{int k； public： MyBase(int n=O)：k(n)}}int value()eonst{return k；}}； class MyDerived：MyBase{intj； public： MyDerived(int i)：j(i)}}int getK()const{return k；}int getJ()const{return j；}}； 编译时发现有一处语法错误，对这个错误最准确的描述是（ ）。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
若有如下类声明： Class MyClass{ publiC： MyClass（ ）{Cout<<1；} }； 执行下列语句 MyClass a，b[2]，*p[2]； 程序的输出结果是（ ）。
TEXT3 “There is on and only one social responsibility of business,” wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize-winning economist, “That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” But even if you accept Friedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies-at least when they are prosecuted for corruption. The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company’s products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse “halo effect,” whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others. Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. Al recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company’s products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect. The study found that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties,. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm’s political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines. In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company’s record in CSR. “We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern , such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving byabout20% results in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials”, says one researcher. Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they decide their do-gooding policies. But at least they have demonstrated that when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them less costly punishment. Which of the following is true of CSR, according to the last paragraph
Text 2 For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate”the countryside”alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Serivce (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support. A century ago Octavia Hill Launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save“the beauty of natural places for everyone forever”. It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience“a refreshing air .”Hill’s pressure later led to creation of national parks and green belts. They don’t make countryside any more，and every year concrete consumes more of it . It needs constant guardianship. At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment. The conservatives’planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation， even authorising“off-plan”building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable. Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance,has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local conservative parties. The sensible place to build new houses，factories and offices is where people are，in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London area alone，with no intrusion on green belt. What is true of London is even truer of the provinces. The idea that”housing crisis”equals“concreted meadows” is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always，where to put them. Under lobby pressure，George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets . This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin urban Development should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe’s most crowed country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternative --- the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum. which of the following can be inferred from Paragraph 3
试论述建构主义学习理论的知识观、学习观和学生观的内容及其对实际教学的指导作用。
微信支付 
支付宝支付