C++ Using the function of the class two class above - c++

I have the current setup:
class Interface1
{
public:
virtual ~Interface1() {}
virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};
class Interface2 : public virtual Interface1
{
public:
virtual ~Interface2() {}
virtual void DoSomething() override = 0;
virtual void DoSomethingElse() = 0;
};
class MyClass1 : public Interface1
{
public:
MyClass1();
void DoSomething() override;
};
class MyClass2 : public Interface2
{
public:
MyClass2();
void DoSomething() override;
void DoSomethingElse() override;
};
int main()
{
std::map<std::string, boost::any> items;
items.insert(make_pair("item1", shared_ptr<Interface1>(new MyClass1())));
items.insert(make_pair("item2", shared_ptr<Interface2>(new MyClass2())));
auto object = items.at("item2");
auto item = boost::any_cast<shared_ptr<Interface1>>(object);
item->DoSomething();
return 0;
}
When I run this code, nothing happens. MyClass2 doesn't appear to be calling DoSomething(), which is what I would like. How can I make the call to Interface1::DoSomething() actually call Interface2::DoSomething()? I would think it would be possible because they all inherit from each other, but I can't seem to make it work.
The reason I want this is because I have some functions which will only work with classes inherited from Interface2, but some functions need to support classes derived from either Interface1 and Interface2. Once boost::any takes over I loose which type it originally was, but it shouldn't be a problem if I could use the setup described above, so even if my original class was derived from Interface2, it could call the same function in Interface1 and get the same result.
Is there a way of doing what I want with the current setup?
EDIT:
Sorry, the void in front of the constructors where my bad, but that is not the issue.

Why do you need the boost::any?
If you need to determine the difference between Interface1 and Interface2, and you have a std::shared_pointer stored in your map, then just store a std::shared_pointer<Interface1> and use std::dynamic_pointer_cast<Interface2> to determine whether you have an Interface1 or an Interface2
Example:
#include <map>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
class Interface1
{
public:
virtual ~Interface1() = default;
virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};
class Interface2 : public Interface1
{
public:
virtual ~Interface2() = default;
virtual void DoSomethingElse() = 0;
};
class MyClass1 : public Interface1
{
public:
MyClass1() {}
void DoSomething() override { std::cout << "\t\t" << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << '\n'; }
};
class MyClass2 : public Interface2
{
public:
MyClass2() {}
void DoSomething() override { std::cout << "\t\t" << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << '\n'; }
void DoSomethingElse() override { std::cout << "\t\t" << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << '\n'; }
};
int main()
{
std::map<std::string, std::shared_ptr<Interface1>> items;
items.emplace("item1", std::make_shared<MyClass1>());
items.emplace("item2", std::make_shared<MyClass2>());
auto check = [&items](const std::string& name)
{
auto object = items.at(name);
auto item = std::dynamic_pointer_cast<Interface2>(object);
if (item)
{
std::cout << name << " is an Interface2\n";
item->DoSomething();
item->DoSomethingElse();
}
else
{
std::cout << name << " is an Interface1\n";
object->DoSomething();
}
};
check("item1");
check("item2");
return 0;
}
Output:
item1 is an Interface1
virtual void MyClass1::DoSomething()
item2 is an Interface2
virtual void MyClass2::DoSomething()
virtual void MyClass2::DoSomethingElse()
Some final notes:
I also question the need for virtual inheritance between Interface2 and Interface1
I don't believe you need to override DoSomething in Interface2 - it's already there by publically inheriting from Interface1
virtual void DoSomething() override = 0; is unnecessary

It's not useful, but it works:
Live On Coliru
#include <map>
#include <iostream>
class Interface1
{
public:
virtual ~Interface1() {}
virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};
class Interface2 : public virtual Interface1
{
public:
virtual ~Interface2() {}
virtual void DoSomething() override = 0;
virtual void DoSomethingElse() = 0;
};
class MyClass1 : public Interface1
{
public:
MyClass1() {}
void DoSomething() override { std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << "\n"; }
};
class MyClass2 : public Interface2
{
public:
MyClass2(){}
void DoSomething() override { std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << "\n"; }
void DoSomethingElse() override { std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << "\n"; }
};
#include <memory>
#include <boost/any.hpp>
int main()
{
using std::shared_ptr;
std::map<std::string, boost::any> items;
items.insert(make_pair("item1", shared_ptr<Interface1>(new MyClass1())));
items.insert(make_pair("item2", shared_ptr<Interface2>(new MyClass2())));
{
auto object = items.at("item1");
auto item = boost::any_cast<shared_ptr<Interface1>>(object);
item->DoSomething();
}
{
auto object = items.at("item2");
auto item = boost::any_cast<shared_ptr<Interface2>>(object);
item->DoSomething();
}
return 0;
}
Prints
virtual void MyClass1::DoSomething()
virtual void MyClass2::DoSomething()
Of course you need to cast to the correct interface

Found the problem. Here are the correct definitions for MyClass1 and MyClass2 :
class MyClass1 : public Interface1
{
public:
MyClass1();
void DoSomething() override;
};
class MyClass2 : public Interface2
{
public:
MyClass2();
void DoSomething() override;
void DoSomethingElse() override;
};
You have declared your constructors as void MyClass1(), which is illegal. The correct constructor syntax is MyClass1().
I don't know which compiler you're using, but I'd throw it out for not raising a syntax error.

Related

How to override two methods of 2 parents that inherits same classes with virtual methods in C++

Consider the next Example:
#include <iostream>
class Base{
public:
virtual void f() {
std::cout << "Base::f()" << std::endl;
}
};
class Derived1 : public Base
{
public:
virtual void f() override
{
Base::f();
std::cout << "Derived1::f()" << std::endl;
}
};
class Derived2 : public Base
{
public:
virtual void f() override
{
Base::f();
std::cout << "Derived2::f()" << std::endl;
}
};
class DerivedUnion : public Derived1, public Derived2
{
public:
void Derived1::f() override { // Errors
}
void Derived2::f() override { // Errors
}
};
is there some how that allow me to override the
Derived2::f()
in the
DerivedUnion{}
class?
I have tried to target specific one with namespace like style, but it didnt worked:
class DerivedUnion : public Derived1, public Derived2
// Notice DerivedUnion is not a Union, name is for
// Demostration Purposes, not intended to create
// A union Behavior
{
public:
virtual void Derived1::f() override; // Compile error
virtual void Derived2::f() override; // Compile error
virtual void f() override; // Not a compile error, but both Derived1 and Derived2 call same
};
void UseBase(Base* b){
b->f(); // expected Ambiguos call compile time
b->DerivedUnion::f() // Expected overriden DerivedUnion::f() to be called
b->Derived1::f(); // Expected overriden Derived1::f() to be called
b->Derived2::f(); // Expected overriden Derived2::f() to be called
}
An Example of it could be this one, code is self explanatory:
#include <iostream>
/* Interface Drawable */
class IDrawable {
public:
virtual void Draw() {};
};
/* Asume this is a button from one kind of bar */
class ButtonA : public IDrawable{
public:
virtual void Draw() override {
std::cout << "ButtonA::Draw()" << std::endl;
}
};
/* Asume this is a button from another kind of bar */
class ButtonB : public IDrawable{
public:
virtual void Draw() override {
std::cout << "ButtonB::Draw()" << std::endl;
}
};
/**
Where Component X is a representation that will represent 2 buttons types
*/
class ComponentX : public ButtonA, public ButtonB {
public:
void ButtonA::Draw() override { // cannot define member function ‘ButtonA::Draw’ within ‘ComponentX’
ButtonA::Draw();
std::cout << "Custom ComponentX::Draw()" << std::endl;
}
void ButtonB::Draw() override { // error: cannot define member function ‘ButtonB::Draw’ within ‘ComponentX’
ButtonB::Draw();
std::cout << "Custom ComponentX::Draw()" << std::endl;
}
};
class ComponentY : public ButtonA, public ButtonB {
public:
void ButtonA::Draw() override { // cannot define member function ‘ButtonA::Draw’ within ‘ComponentY’
ButtonA::Draw();
std::cout << "Custom ComponentY::Draw()" << std::endl;
}
void ButtonB::Draw() override { // error: cannot define member function ‘ButtonB::Draw’ within ‘ComponentY’
ButtonB::Draw();
std::cout << "Custom ComponentY::Draw()" << std::endl;
}
};
using namespace std;
void DummyAddButtonA(ButtonA* pBtnA)
{
//Add it somewhere ...
}
void DummyAddButtonB(ButtonB* pBtnB)
{
//Add it somewhere ...
}
int main()
{
ComponentX compx;
ComponentY compy;
DummyAddButtonA(&compx);
DummyAddButtonB(&compx);
DummyAddButtonA(&compy);
DummyAddButtonB(&compy);
return 0;
}

Avoiding C++ virtual inheritance

I'm trying to inherit from a hierarchy of abstract base classes, using an equivalent hierarchies of implementation classes. The only way I've figured out how to do it is using virtual inheritance.
/* Foo Interface */
class IFoo
{
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
virtual ~IFoo() = default;
};
/* Bar Interface */
class IBar : virtual public IFoo
{
public:
virtual void bar() = 0;
virtual ~IBar() = default;
};
/* A specialized Foo */
class SpecificFoo : virtual public IFoo
{
public:
void foo() override { std::cout << "Foo!\n"; }
};
/* A specialized Bar */
class SpecificBar : virtual public IBar, virtual public SpecificFoo
{
public:
void bar() override { std::cout << "Bar!\n"; }
};
int main()
{
SpecificBar b;
b.bar();
return 0;
}
Although I'm not entirely opposed to using virtual inheritance, I'm not sure that it's the correct approach. Having to use dynamic_cast seems like something to avoid if possible. Is there a better way to do this?
I've tried something with an adapter pattern, but copy/pasting wrapper methods is getting out of hand.
I don't see the benefit of making IBar a sub-type of IFoo from the posted code.
IMO, it will be better to remove that inheritance.
/* Foo Interface */
class IFoo
{
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
virtual ~IFoo() = default;
};
/* Bar Interface */
class IBar
{
public:
virtual void bar() = 0;
virtual ~IBar() = default;
};
/* A specialized Foo */
class SpecificFoo : public IFoo
{
public:
void foo() override { std::cout << "Foo!\n"; }
};
/* A specialized Bar */
class SpecificBar : public IBar
{
public:
void bar() override { std::cout << "Bar!\n"; }
};
/* A specialized Foo and Bar */
class SpecificFooAndBar : public IFoo, public IBar
{
public:
void foo() override { std::cout << "Foo!\n"; }
void bar() override { std::cout << "Bar!\n"; }
};
I came up with a solution that avoids virtual inheritance, but also gets rid of code duplication. I used a template parameter to specify the base class.
/* Foo Interface */
class IFoo
{
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
virtual ~IFoo() = default;
};
/* Bar Interface */
class IBar : public IFoo
{
public:
virtual void bar() = 0;
virtual ~IBar() = default;
};
/* A specialized Foo */
template <typename _BaseClass>
class SpecificFooTpl : public _BaseClass
{
public:
void foo() override { std::cout << "Foo!\n"; }
};
using SpecificFoo = SpecificFooTpl<IFoo>;
/* A specialized Bar */
class SpecificBar : public SpecificFooTpl<IBar>
{
public:
void bar() override { std::cout << "Bar!\n"; }
};
int main()
{
SpecificFoo f;
SpecificBar b;
f.foo();
b.bar();
return 0;
}

C++ Visitor Pattern and Polymorphism

The following code is a simplified version of a VisitorPattern I have implemented on my project.
#include <iostream>
class AVisitor {
public:
virtual void visit(class A *) = 0;
};
class ExtendedVisitor : public AVisitor {
public:
virtual void visit(class B *) = 0;
};
class A {
public:
virtual void accept(AVisitor *visitor) {
std::cout << "Call accept of A" << std::endl;
visitor->visit(this);
}
};
class B : public A {
public:
void accept(AVisitor *visitor) override {
std::cout << "Call accept of B" << std::endl;
B *just_this = this;
visitor->visit(just_this); //why this calls to visit(A*)
visitor->visit((B*) just_this); //useless casting
}
};
class ActualVisitor : public ExtendedVisitor {
public:
void visit(A *x) override {
std::cout << "Call visit on A*" << std::endl;
}
void visit(B *x) override {
std::cout << "Never called" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
ActualVisitor visitor;
A *a = new B();
a->accept(&visitor);
}
I don't understand why the accept method of class B calls to the visitor(A*) method instead of visitor(B*). The main function prints
Call accept of B
Call visit on A*
Call visit on A*
Instead, the following code behaves as I expected:
#include <iostream>
class AVisitor {
public:
virtual void visit(class A *) = 0;
virtual void visit(class B *) = 0;
};
class A {
public:
virtual void accept(AVisitor *visitor) {
std::cout << "Call accept of A" << std::endl;
visitor->visit(this);
}
};
class B : public A {
public:
void accept(AVisitor *visitor) override {
std::cout << "Call accept of B" << std::endl;
B *just_this = this;
visitor->visit(just_this); //now it works
visitor->visit((B*) just_this);
}
};
class ActualVisitor : public AVisitor {
public:
void visit(A *x) override {
std::cout << "Call visit on A*" << std::endl;
}
void visit(B *x) override {
std::cout << "Call visit on B*" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
ActualVisitor visitor;
A *a = new B();
a->accept(&visitor);
}
It now prints:
Call accept of B
Call visit on B*
Call visit on B*
The problem then seems to be the inheritance of the AVisitor class. I wonder why this happens and what is the proper way to design a VisitorPattern with "specialized" visitors (here ExtendedVisitor can also visit a B object)
Your B::accept has the following signature:
void accept(AVisitor *visitor) override;
So, let's check the interface of AVisitor. It has
virtual void visit(class A *) = 0;
and that is all it has (in your first version). It is true that ExtendedVisitor has
virtual void visit(class B *) = 0;
but that does not override the method in AVisitor. In fact, your second version can help you see why. Since
virtual void visit(class A *) = 0;
virtual void visit(class B *) = 0;
can reside together in the same class (they are overloads in your second version), then they are distinct methods in this respect.
You are implementing Visitor incorrectly. Here's the right way:
class AVisitor {
public:
virtual void visit(class A *) = 0;
virtual void visit(class B *) = 0;
// virtual void visit(class C *) = 0; etc
// a separate function for every class in your hierarchy
};
and then
class ActualVisitor : public Visitor ...
There's no need for ExtendedVisitor.
Yes AVisitor must know about every class in your hierarchy. This is the principal drawback of this pattern.

Can derived class have two sets of virtual functions?

Is it possible to have a derived class to have two sets of the same virtual functions as the base class? I'm looking to do something like the following. The idea being able to choose between two sets of function pointers.
class Base
{
virtual void func1;
virtual void func2;
};
class Derived: Base
{
float somemember;
void somefunction()
{
Base* func = this->derived_functions1;
}
class derived_functions1
{
virtual void func1()
{
return somemember*100;
}
virtual void func2;
};
class derived_functions2
{
virtual void func1;
virtual void func2;
};
};
class Base
{
public:
virtual void func1();
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct Impl1 : Base
{
void func1() override {}
};
struct Impl2 : Base
{
void func1() override {}
};
struct Derived : Base
{
Derived(std::unique_ptr<Base> implementation) :
impl(std::move(implementation))
{}
void func1() override { impl->func1(); }
void changeImpl(std::unique_ptr<Base> implementation)
{
impl = std::move(implementation);
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<Base> impl;
};
Not the way you did. But you can make both the inner class derived_functionsX to be themseves public: Base, than have your main Derived to contain a std::unique_ptr<Base> ptryou can set to new derived_functions1 or new derived_functions2
and implement in Derived func1 and func2 to call ptr->func1() and ptr->func2().
For all that to work properly, Base must also have a virtual ~Base() {} otherwise no proper deletion can be done.
In this example, it won't compile, since derived_function1 and derived_functions2 aren't inheriting from Base.
But you could have something like this:
class Base
{
virtual void func1();
virtual void func2();
};
class Wrapper {
public:
Wrapper(int arg)
{
switch(arg)
{
case 1:
b = new derived_functions1;
break;
case 2:
b = new derived_functions2;
break;
default:
cout << "bad value of arg" << arg << endl;
exit(1);
}
}
~Wrapper()
{
delete b;
}
Base* GetClass()
{
return b;
}
private:
Base *b;
class derived_functions1: public Base
{
virtual void func1();
virtual void func2();
};
class derived_functions2: public Base
{
virtual void func1();
virtual void func2();
};
};
Short answer: No. A class can override inherited virtual functions only once.
However, there is a design pattern that exchanges function's behavior on the fly, called Strategy Pattern. In short: the class that has exchangeable behavior has a pointer to a Strategy base class that defines the interface for that behavior. It is populated with concrete Strategy classes. The function that has different behavior just delegates its calls to the Strategy pointer. Here's an example, tailored to your question:
class Base {
public:
virtual void func1() = 0;
virtual void func2() = 0;
virtual ~Base(){}
};
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
class Derived : public Base
{
struct F1Strategy {
virtual void f1Impl() = 0;
virtual ~F1Strategy() {}
};
struct Impl1 : F1Strategy {
void f1Impl() override { std::cout << "one!\n"; }
};
struct Impl2 : F1Strategy {
void f1Impl() override { std::cout << "two?\n"; }
};
std::unique_ptr<F1Strategy> f1Strategy;
public:
Derived()
: f1Strategy(new Impl1())
{}
void func1() override { f1Strategy->f1Impl(); }
void func2() override {
static std::unique_ptr<F1Strategy> otherStrategy(new Impl2());
f1Strategy.swap(otherStrategy);
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> pb(new Derived());
pb->func1(); // ==> one!
pb->func2(); //swap
pb->func1(); // ==> two?
pb->func1(); // ==> two?
pb->func2(); //swap
pb->func1(); // ==> one!
}
See it in action: http://ideone.com/zk3UTI

Abstract object cannot declare

I'm having a problem with abstract/virtual classes, a replication of the problem here:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
protected:
virtual std::string getDateTime() = 0;
virtual void Write(std::string data, bool addDate) = 0;
virtual bool CheckFile() = 0;
virtual bool OpenFile(std::string path) = 0;
virtual void CloseFile() = 0;
};
class B
: public A
{
public:
virtual std::string ToString() { return ""; };
virtual void Write(std::string data) { };
};
class C
: public A
{
protected:
std::string getDateTime()
{
return "TODAY";
};
void Write(std::string data, bool addDate)
{
std::cout << "BasicClassA Write" << std::endl;
};
bool CheckFile()
{
std::cout << "BasicClassA CheckFile" << std::endl;
return true;
};
bool OpenFile(std::string path)
{
std::cout << "BasicClassA OpenFile" << std::endl;
return true;
};
void CloseFile()
{
std::cout << "BasicClassA CloseFile" << std::endl;
};
};
class D
: public B,
public C
{
public:
BasicClassB();
virtual ~BasicClassB();
std::string ToString()
{
return "BasicClassB tostring";
};
void Write(std::string data)
{
std::cout << "BasicClassB Write" << std::endl;
};
};
int main(int ac, char *av[])
{
BasicClassB b;
std::cout << b.ToString() << std::endl;
b.Write("");
return 0;
}
This has a compile error:
../src/main.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
../src/main.cpp:82: error: cannot declare variable ‘b’ to be of abstract type ‘BasicClassB’
../src/main.cpp:64: note: because the following virtual functions are pure within ‘BasicClassB’:
../src/main.cpp:13: note: virtual std::string BaseClassA::getDateTime()
../src/main.cpp:14: note: virtual void BaseClassA::Write(std::string, bool)
../src/main.cpp:15: note: virtual bool BaseClassA::CheckFile()
../src/main.cpp:16: note: virtual bool BaseClassA::OpenFile(std::string)
../src/main.cpp:17: note: virtual void BaseClassA::CloseFile()
Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but the implementation of BaseClassA (being BasicClassA) should contain these functions, and since BasicClassB is subclassed from BasicClassA as well, it should also contain these functions?
What am I missing? What should I do to make this compile?
[edit]
I updated the class names as suggested by the comment
For clarification: I used pure virtual in the class A to force any of the children to implement the functions.
It seems virtual inheritance is what I need, however, I don't seem to get the correct way on how to do this in my case...
The goal is to have several "base" classes, kind of like interfaces, forcing the children to implement the functions, but any children of those should inherit the overriden function (just like virtual inheritance)
However, using any combination of
class Any : public virtual Anyother { }
doesn't work out and always gives the same compile error (the one above). Perhaps I need to change more than just the virtual in the inheritance?
It doesn't work that way by default in C++ - You want a diamond inheritance pattern, but in C++ you get separate roots: So BasicClassA and BaseClassB each have their own BaseClassA (vtable and instance variables).
You probably want to use Virtual Inheritance.
For a clearer idea on non-virtual inheritance:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A(int x) {m_a = x;}
virtual ~A() {}
int m_a;
virtual int getA() {return m_a;}
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() : A(1) {}
};
class C : public A
{
public:
C() : A(2) {}
};
class D : public B,
public C
{
};
void useB(B* b)
{
std::cout << "useB:" << b->getA() << std::endl;
}
void useC(C* c)
{
std::cout << "useC:" << c->getA() << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
D* d = new D();
useB(d);
useC(d);
return 0;
}
This produces the output:
useB:1
useC:2
This example shows virtual inheritance, and the kind of mix-in behaviour you want.
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A(int x) {m_a = x;}
virtual ~A() {}
int m_a;
virtual int getA() {return m_a;}
virtual int virt() = 0;
};
class B : virtual public A
{
public:
B() : A(1) {}
};
class C : virtual public A
{
public:
C() : A(2) {}
virtual int virt() {return 42;}
};
class D : public B,
public C
{
public:
D() : A(3) {}
};
void useB(B* b)
{
std::cout << "useB:" << b->getA() << std::endl;
}
void useC(C* c)
{
std::cout << "useC:" << c->getA() << std::endl;
std::cout << "useC-virt:" << c->virt() << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
D* d = new D();
useB(d);
useC(d);
return 0;
}
Output:
useB:3
useC:3
useC-virt:42
Note: The constructors from C and B don't get a say in setting m_a, which is controller by the D() constructor initialisation list.
EDIT:
Applying virtual to your code:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
protected:
virtual std::string getDateTime() = 0;
virtual void Write(std::string data, bool addDate) = 0;
virtual bool CheckFile() = 0;
virtual bool OpenFile(std::string path) = 0;
virtual void CloseFile() = 0;
};
class B
: virtual public A
{
public:
virtual std::string ToString() { return ""; };
virtual void Write(std::string data) { };
};
class C
: virtual public A
{
protected:
std::string getDateTime()
{
return "TODAY";
};
void Write(std::string data, bool addDate)
{
std::cout << "C Write" << std::endl;
};
bool CheckFile()
{
std::cout << "C CheckFile" << std::endl;
return true;
};
bool OpenFile(std::string path)
{
std::cout << "C OpenFile" << std::endl;
return true;
};
void CloseFile()
{
std::cout << "C CloseFile" << std::endl;
};
};
class D
: public B,
public C
{
public:
std::string ToString()
{
return "D tostring";
};
void Write(std::string data)
{
std::cout << "D Write" << std::endl;
};
};
int main(int ac, char *av[])
{
D b;
std::cout << b.ToString() << std::endl;
b.Write("");
return 0;
}
BaseClassA has 5 pure virtual functions. A class with even one pure virtual function is an "Abstract class". The purpose of pure virtual functions (in short) is to disallow creation of objects of the abstract class.
In order to instantiate BaseClassB, it needs to have definitions of all 5 functions which you declared pure virtual in BaseClassA. (In absence of these definitions, BaseClassB also becomes Abstract and hence you cannot create objects from it).
BasicClassB only derives from BaseClassA which is an abstract class since those methods :
virtual std::string getDateTime() = 0;
virtual void Write(std::string data, bool addDate) = 0;
virtual bool CheckFile() = 0;
virtual bool OpenFile(std::string path) = 0;
virtual void CloseFile() = 0;
Are pure virtual.
The error message is pretty clear: to be able to instantiate a BasicClassB you must provide an implementation for the forementioned methods.
Also, note that your definition of Write in BasicClassB:
virtual void Write(std::string data) { };
Differs from the one in BaseClassA:
virtual void Write(std::string data, bool addDate) = 0;
So this method still needs to be implemented for BasicClassB to become instantiable.
The fact that you add "=0" to your functions means that they are purely virtual, and must be implemented in child classes. Which is obviously not what you want. If you drop the "=0" from the functions that have an implementation in the base class, it should be working as intended.