The question might be trivial (and possibly a duplicate).
As far as I understand, a C/C++ header file (with a using namespace in it), when used by other source files, it is copied right at the point where the #include directive was in that source file.
Also, given that a source file uses a relatively large number of include directives and that there may be a couple of "redefinitions" for the entire standard library (simply targeted at different implementations).
Here is the main question: How do I know which namespaces am I currently using at any point in the source file if the source file has no using namespace statement?
I'm reading through source files and I have no idea which namespace is being used.
One can override the namespace cleverness by using something like ::std::getline().
If there is no easy way of determining the namespace, is it fair to refactor those files, such that where say string is used to replace it with ::std::string?
If you don't have a using namespace ... directive you're not using any namespace. In general, your code should refer to things in the standard library with their full names, e.g., std::cout, std::get_line(), std::string.
Yes, you can save your self some typing at the expense of loss of clarity and sometimes mysterious compilation failures or, worse, runtime failures with using namespace std;. After that, you don't have to put std:: in front of the names of things in the standard library: cout, get_line(), string. The using directive puts those names into the global namespace, along with a bunch of sludge that you probably aren't interested in.
If you use something like using namespace std; it should appear only in a source file, never in a header. That way you can tell which namespaces have been "used" by looking at the top of the file. You shouldn't have to track through all your headers for stray using directives.
using namespace does not mean that you currently use this specific namespace. It means, that all types, variables and functions from this namespace are now in your global namespace, for this translation unit. So, you might have multiple of these statements.
This is why header files should never use using namespace. There is no easier way than using std::string within a header file, you should always be very explicit about the namespace without using namespaces.
Having used using namespace xxx, there is no way of finding out that xxx is now in global namespace, I am afraid.
using namespace does not do what you expect...
If you want to place functions, classes or variables in a namespace, you do it this way:
namespace foo
{
void f();
}
namespace bar
{
void f();
}
This declares two functions f in namespaces foo and bar respectively. The same you will find in header files; if there is no namespace specified as above, then the function/class/variable is in global namespace. Nothing more.
using namespace now allows you to use functions from a namespace without having to specify it explicitly:
// without:
foo::f();
bar::f();
f(); // unknown!
using namespace foo;
foo::f(); // still fine...
bar::f();
f(); // now you call foo::f
Be aware that this is bad practice, though (the link refers to namespace std, but same applies for all namespaces).
This is even worse in header files: there is no way to undo the effect of a declared using namespace <whatever> again – so you impose it on all users of your header, possibly causing great trouble to some of them. So please don't ever use it in header files.
There are three approaches I can think of right now:
Use the IDE: A modern development environment should be able (possibly with the help of plug-ins) to analyze your code while you edit, and tell you the authoritative qualified name of any identifier you hover the mouse cursor over.
Of course this is not an option if you are not using an IDE, and sometimes even IDEs may get confused and give you wrong information.
Use the compiler and guesswork: If you already have a hunch which namespace you might be in, you can define some object, reference it via qualified name, and see if the code compiles, like so:
const int Fnord = 1;
const int* Probe = &::solid::guess::Fnord;
One caveat is that it may give misleading results if using namespace or anonymous namespaces are involved.
Use the preprocessor: Most compilers define a preprocessor macro that tells you the name of the function it is used in, which may include the namespace; for example, on MSVC, __FUNCTION__ will do just this. If the file contains a function that you know will be executed, you can have that function tell you its authoritative qualified name at run-time, like so:
int SomeFunction(void)
{
printf("%s\n", __FUNCTION__);
}
If you can't use standard output, you might store the value in a variable and use a debugger to inspect it.
If you can find no such function, try defining a class with a static instance of itself, and placing the code in the constructor.
(Unfortunately I can't think of a way to inspect the macro's value at compile-time; static_assert came to my mind, but it can't be used inside functions, and __FUNCTION__ can't be used outside.)
The macro is not standardized though, and may not include the namespace (or it may not exist at all). On GCC for instance, __FUNCTION__ will only give you the unqualified name, and you will have to use __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ instead.
(As of C99 and C++11 there does exist a standardized alternative, __func__, but the format of the function name is unspecified, and may or may not include the namespace. On GCC it does not.)
Related
When using a header which has a format <cname>, an implementation will put names into std namespace. And it may put names into the global namespace as well, as it is described here:
[ Example: The header <cstdlib> assuredly provides its declarations and definitions within the namespace std. It may also provide these names within the global namespace. [...] — end example ]
Is there a (maybe compiler dependent) way to circumvent/disable this behavior (I'm open to any tricky solution)? I'd like to use names from std only, and I'd like to have an error/warning when using names from the global namespace:
#include <cmath>
double a = cos(0.5); // I'd like to have an error here, because std:: is missing
The reasons:
It is hard to write a portable code, if it may use names from the global namespace, as these names may be not available in other compilers. It is much cleaner to use everything from std, and not use the global namespace at all
cos(0.5f) does a different thing whether std:: is prefixed or not (float vs double result).
Since tricky solutions are fine...
Use a C++ parser, e.g. Clang, and write a tool that parses the header file, collects all the function definitions, and then compares that set against all definitions and calls to global functions.
Of course, it will also pick up cases where someone has defined or called a function with the same name as the standard ones, but you will probably want to avoid that as well anyway.
Is there anything that can be done about looong symbols that need to be referenced in header files, e.g. ABDEFGHIJ::ZXCBVB::AWEDADSDEM::GFGBKGDF::Tools::Item? I know in header files you aren't supposed to using using because it messes up anybody who includes it.
The only working feature that cleans up after itself that I can even think of would be #define+#undef but that seems terrible.
Is there a new feature that solves this that I'm not aware of? I'm also interested in any popular proposals. Maybe using with a bracketed block syntax, to let me restrict the effect to just my header...?
It's not good practice to have a using namespace using directive at global scope in a header file. There are a number of less drastic things you can do that are fairly benign however.
Inside an inline or template function in a header, you can use a using directive without affecting anyone else. This saves you having to qualify all the names in a non-trivial function body.
As Maksim Solovjov suggests, you can use namespace aliases to cut down on typing, with the caveat that a namespace alias at global scope will introduce that alias to anyone including your header so that may not be desirable.
C++11 introduced type aliases and alias templates which can be used in a header at class scope, function scope or namespace scope (you may still want to avoid using them at global scope) to give a shorter name to types. This is particularly useful when dealing with template types with long names like e.g. std::map<std::string, std::vector<std::function<float(float)>>>
C++11 and 14 type deduction through the auto keyword can greatly reduce the need to name long types in headers, whether function return types, local variables or parameters to lambdas.
C++11 decltype can also be useful to avoid saying the names of long types in certain situations.
Here is what I feel.
First of all you should create your own namespaces. Then you can draw in other namespace symbols without polluting the global namespace.
If the namespace you are accessing is truly massive (like std) then I would always either use the std:: qualifier or declare the types explicitly:
namespace my_project {
std::string s; // qualify
// or declare specific types
using std::string;
} // my_project
If the namespace is from your own project or a relatively small library then I see no reason not to inject the whole namespace into your own (never into the global namespace).
namespace my_project {
using namespace xmltools; // never do this in global namespace
// use without prefix here
} // my_project
The key is to use your own namespaces. Then what you do inside them will have less affect on people using your headers.
I think the main point is to remember that if someone injects the symbols from your namespace into their own they should not be surprised by what it contains.
So if my library builds on another library it may be normal for my library to contain the type symbols from the other library and someone injecting my namespace into theirs would also expect that.
You can have namespace aliases:
namespace fbz = foo::bar::baz;
However, you would introduce fbz to every file that includes your header.
I've easily gotten myself into the habit of prefixing standard identifiers with std:: instead of sticking in a using namespace std;. However, I've started getting into C# and I've noticed that it's very normal to add in whatever using directives are necessary, i.e., you'd see:
using System;
Console.Write("foo");
instead of:
System.Console.Write("foo");
Apparently, as I found out from a C# question on this topic, that usage comes from the fact that individual system namespaces in C# are much, much smaller than std is in C++, and therefore eliminates the problems associated with name clashes, as there is much less likelihood (and you can just find-replace it with a fully qualified name if a library updates with a name-clash), and eliminates the problems associated with a crapload of Intellisense options appearing, as the namespaces are small enough to handle.
The question, then, is that if these are the standing reasons to make use of using directives in C#, is the same true for C++? Is it generally acceptable to apply this to smaller third-party namespaces, as well as your own smaller namespaces?
Now I realize that this might cause a bit of controversy, I want to take this moment to ask that it doesn't turn into an argument. A good answer should include a basis, i.e., advantages or disadvantages, and how using one way over the other really makes a worthwhile difference.
The reason I ask this is to clear up the issue, and possibly remove the notion that using directives in C++ have to be a bad thing. Sure longer namespace names can be cut down with a namespace alias if necessary, and fully qualified names can still be used if needed, but sometimes a using directive greatly eases accessing some members such as user-defined literal operators, which, to my knowledge, have no form of ADL, meaning that you either have to use a using directive, or call the operator method by the function syntax, defeating the whole purpose of using the operator in the first place.
For example, I had a namespace (that includes a structure representing a keyboard key, along with a literal suffix as a readable alternate means of access:
"caps lock"_key.disable();
The problem here is that unless you have previously inserted using namespace Whatever; or using Whatever::operator"" _key;, the code won't compile, which is bad news for the user.
Using directives have obvious problems when std is involved or when used in such a way in a header that they bring unwanted extras for the user of that header, but is it justified to use them for other namespaces when contained within a smaller scope than whatever includes a header? The keystrokes saved from not having to type each qualifier each time do add up, and with today's Intellisense capabilities, finding out which namespace an unqualified identifier belongs to is as easy as mousing over it.
I think the rules about using declarations in C++ are rather simple:
NEVER write "using namespace anything;" in the global scope of a header, especially one that is likely to be reused by other programs (e.g. when writing a library). It pollutes the global scope of all subsequent headers with the symbols of this namespace, which defeats the entire purpose of namespaces, and can create unforeseen name clashes later on.
In the .cpp files and inner scopes of headers (e.g. inline function scopes), you can be "using" whatever namespaces you want, as it won't affect any other file. Just do whatever is more convenient for you and try to be reasonably consistent within a project.
EDIT: for the _key problem, simply define this operator in its own namespace and tell users to import it. This way they won't need to type out the operator declaration.
namespace something {
class key { ... };
}
namespace key_suffix {
something::key operator"" _key() { ... }
}
// user code
void some_function() {
using namespace key_suffix;
"caps lock"_key.doSomething();
}
Why do we need both using namespace and include directives in C++ programs?
For example,
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
cout << "Hello world";
}
Why is it not enough to just have #include <iostream> or just have using namespace std and get rid of the other?
(I am thinking of an analogy with Java, where import java.net.* will import everything from java.net, you don't need to do anything else.)
using directives and include preprocessor directives are two different things. The include roughly corresponds to the CLASSPATH environment variable of Java, or the -cp option of the java virtual machine.
What it does is making the types known to the compiler. Just including <string> for example will make you able to refer to std::string :
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
std::cout << std::string("hello, i'm a string");
}
Now, using directives are like import in Java. They make names visible in the scope they appear in, so you don't have to fully qualify them anymore. Like in Java, names used must be known before they can be made visible:
#include <string> // CLASSPATH, or -cp
#include <iostream>
// without import in java you would have to type java.lang.String .
// note it happens that java has a special rule to import java.lang.*
// automatically. but that doesn't happen for other packages
// (java.net for example). But for simplicity, i'm just using java.lang here.
using std::string; // import java.lang.String;
using namespace std; // import java.lang.*;
int main() {
cout << string("hello, i'm a string");
}
It's bad practice to use a using directive in header files, because that means every other source file that happens to include it will see those names using unqualified name lookup. Unlike in Java, where you only make names visible to the package the import line appears in, In C++ it can affect the whole program, if they include that file directly or indirectly.
Be careful when doing it at global scope even in implementation files. Better to use them as local as possible. For namespace std, i never use that. I, and many other people, just always write std:: in front of names. But if you happen to do it, do it like this:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
using namespace std;
cout << string("hello, i'm a string");
}
For what namespaces are and why you need them, please read the proposal Bjarne Stroustrup gave 1993 for adding them to the upcoming C++ Standard. It's well written:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/1993/N0262.pdf
In C++ the concepts are separate. This is by design and useful.
You can include things that without namespaces would be ambiguous.
With namespaces you can refer to two different classes that have the same name. Of course in that case you would not use the using directive or if you did you would have to specify the namespace of the other stuff in the namespace you wanted.
Note also that you don't NEED the using - you can just used std::cout or whatever you need to access. You preface the items with the namespace.
In C++ #include and using have different functions.
#include puts the text of the included file into your source file (actually translation unit), namespaces on the other hand are just a mechanism for having unique names so that different people can create a "foo" object.
This comes from C++ not having the concept of a module.
Keep in mind that namespaces in C++ are open, that means that different files can define different parts of the same namespace (sort of like .NET's partial classes).
//a.h
namespace eg {
void foo();
}
//b.h
namespace eg {
void bar();
}
The include is defining the existence of the functions.
The using is making it easier to use them.
cout as defined in iostream is actually named "std::cout".
You could avoid using the namespace by writing.
std::cout << "Hello World";
These keywords are used for different purposes.
The using keyword makes a name from a namespace available for use in the current declarative region. Its mostly for convenience so that you do not have to use the fully qualified name all the time. This page explains it in some detail.
The #include statement is a pre processor directive and it tells the preprocessor to treat the contents of a specified file as if those contents had appeared in the source program at the point where the directive appears. That is, you can think of this statement as copying the included file into the current one. The compiler then compiles the entire file as if you wrote all the code in one big file.
As pointed out, C++ and Java are different languages, and do somewhat different things. Further, C++ is more of a 'jest grew' language, and Java more of a designed language.
While using namespace std; isn't necessarily a bad idea, using it for all namespaces will eliminate the whole benefit. Namespaces exist so that you can write modules without regard to name clashes with other modules, and using namespace this; using namespace that; can create ambiguities.
I think the other answers are missing the point slightly. In all of C++, Java and C#, the using/import thing is entirely optional. So that's not different.
And then you have to do something else to make code be visible anyway, in all three platforms.
In C++, you minimally have to include it into the current translation unit (good enough for many implementations of vector, string, etc.), often you have to add something to your linker as well, although some libraries do that automatically based on the include (e.g. boost when building on Windows).
And in C# you have to add a reference to the other assembly. That takes care of the equivalent of includes and link settings.
And in Java you have to ensure the code is on the classpath, e.g. adding the relevant jar to it.
So there are very closely analogous things required on all three platforms, and the separation between using/import (a convenience) and actual linkage resolution (a requirement) is the same in all three.
You need to understand namespaces if you want to truly understand this.
With include you are just including the header file.
With using namespace you are declaring you are using a given namespace that contains stuff such as cout. so if you do this:
using namespace std;
to you use cout you can just do
cout << "Namespaces are good Fun";
instead of:
std::cout << "Namespaces are Awesome";
Note that if you do not #include <iostream> you won't be able to use neither std::cout nor cout in your declarations and so forth because you're not including the header.
One liner (not that this is something new :)):
using std allows you to omit std:: prefix, but you cannot use cout at all without iostream.
Even Stroustrup refers to the #include mechanism as somewhat hackish. However it does make separate compilation much easier (ship compiled libraries and headers instead of all source code).
The question really is "why did C++ -- after it already had the #include mechanism -- add namespaces?"
The best example I know of about why #include isn't enough comes from Sun. Apparently Sun developers had some trouble with one of their products because they had written a mktemp() function that happened to have the same signature as a mktemp() function that was included through from a file that was itself included through a header the project actually wanted.
Of course the two functions were not compatible, and one could not be used as a substitute for the other. On the other hand, the compiler and linker did not realize this when building the binary, and sometimes mktemp() would call one function, and sometimes it would call another, based on the order different files were compiled or linked.
The problem stems from the fact that C++ was originally compatible with -- and essentially piggy-backed on top of -- C. And C has only a global namespace. C++ solved this problem -- in code that is not compatible with C -- through namespaces.
Both C# and Java (1) have a namespace mechanism (namespace in C#, package in Java), (2) are usually developed through IDEs that handle referring to binaries for the developer, and (3) don't allow freestanding functions (a class scope is something of a namespace, and reduces the risk of polluting the global namespace) so they have a different solution to this problem. However, it is still possible to have some ambiguity regarding which method you're calling (say, a name clash between two interfaces that a class inherits), and in that case all three languages require the programmer to clearly specify which method they're actually looking for, usually by prepending the parent class/interface name.
In C++, the include directive will copy and paste the header file into your source code in the preprocessing step. It should be noted that a header file generally contains functions and classes declared within a namespace. For example, the <vector> header might look similar to something like this:
namespace std {
template <class T, class Allocator = allocator<T> > class vector;
...
}
Supposing you need to define a vector in your main function, you do #include <vector> and you have the piece of code above in your code now:
namespace std {
template <class T, class Allocator = allocator<T> > class vector;
...
}
int main(){
/*you want to use vector here*/
}
Notice that in your code the vector class is still located in the std namespace. However, your main function is in the default global namespace, so simply including the header will not make the vector class visible in global namespace. You have to either use using or do prefixing like std::vector.
When using C++ namespaces, do you prefer to explicitly name them, like this:
std::cout << "Hello, world!\n";
Or do you prefer using namespace:
using namespace std;
cout << "Hello, world!\n";
And if if you prefer the latter, do you declare your usings at file or function scope?
Personally I prefer to explicitly name them - it's more typing but when using a mixture of namespaces (e.g. std and boost) I find it more readable.
I use always explicit ones. Writing std does not hurt me and I clearly see where is it from. It's useful when you have some legacy project to take care of with it's own "strings", "vectors" etc to maintain. The more information the code carries with it, the better.
Extra typing is not the issue here. The problem with explicitly qualified names is the visual clutter. Let's face it, C++ syntax is untidy. No need to make this worse by needlessly making names longer and sprinkling the code generously with ::s.
I'm with Jeff Atwood: The Best Code is No Code At All. This is so true.
Namespace imports are a great way of reducing clutter with no drawback: As long as the scope of opened namespaces is reduced to a single compilation unit1, name conflicts, should they appear, can be resolved easily.
Why explicit names should (in general) be more readable has always been a mystery to me. The readers should generally know the code good enough to be able to deduce semantics. If they aren't, the code needs fixing anyway.
1) Corollary: no using in headers!
I always use using namespace for std & boost. Everything else I tend to use an explicit namespace unless it is used so much that it would clutter up the code.
In headers, I never use using namespace to avoid polluting the global namespace of the #including source.
My general rule is always explicitly use the namespace in headers, and usually use using in the code. The reason for the former is to make it explicitly clear in every part of the definition what is being used, and the reason for the latter is that it makes it easy to use replacements from another namespace if that becomes necessary. i.e. if we want to start using foo::string instead of std::string we just need to update the header and the using statement rather than replacing every instance of std::string with foo::string in the code.
Of course, that is less useful for classes that reside in the std:: namespace, since even if you replace one class you're still likely to use others in std, and may run into ambiguity issues, but that was just an example.
using and using namespace are Very Very useful to render the code more readable - remove clutter.
But in any case where it makes it harder to find out where a symbol comes from, I refuse importing it's whole namespace.
I try to limiit the scope of the imported namespaces:
void bar() {
// do stuff without vector
{ using std::vector;
// do stuff with vector
}
// do stuff without vector
}
For "generally known" libraries, like std, I would dare using using namespace std. There is reason to believe everyone reading this code knows these symbols.
As a sidenote, the using keyword is also used to indicate that a derived class also exports the overloaded members of its superclass.
class A {
void f( A );
void f( bool );
};
class B : public A {
using A::f; // without this, we get a compilation error in foo()
void f(bool);
};
void foo() {
B b;
b.f( A() ); // here's a compilation error when no `using` is used in B
}
I only use explicit namespaces when there's some ambiguity. It is more readable, but the extra typing is too tedious, and you have to assume other developers have a baseline level of familiarity with standard libraries.
The only other times I spell out a namespace are when I'm only using it once or twice, like adding in a quick debug statement, or if I'm using some non-standard library.
I typically declare the namespace at file scope, but if you're mixing namespaces it might make sense to put the declaration closer to the point where it's used, in function scope.
using at function scope, or if the function is very small (often is), just explicit namespace
I tend to explicitly import the names that I need at the top of the .cpp file, so...
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
etc...
That way I have control over the names that I use and it's easy to see where they come from and the code isn't cluttered at the point of use.
In the rare cases where I am using two names from different namespaces I fully qualify them at the point of use.
I always use fully qualified names in headers and hardly ever use 'using namespace x' anywhere...