The Google C++ Style Guide guide advises that macros must not be defined in a .h (header) file. What are the cons of doing it?
The preprocessor concatenates all included source files together in order. If you don't undefine a macro, it can apply to any source following where it was first defined.
Since headers are often the public API of a library, any macros you define in your headers could end up in someone else's code, doing unexpected things.
Since unexpected things are the antithesis of good software, you should either:
Not use macros (idiomatic C++ really shouldn't)
Define them in a private scope (always prefer private) or
Undefine them immediately after use (although this makes them largely useless for your own code)
The best solution depends on your use case. Include guards and other simple, safe defines are typically excluded ( function-like macros are more likely to cause problems, but you can still do something dumb like define TRUE FALSE).
You may also look into conditionally defining macros so they are present in your code but don't become part of the public API. Checking for a variable set during your build or keeping macros in a separate header allows others to optionally, explicitly, and knowingly include them, which can be convenient if the macros help avoid a lot of boilerplate.
For the same reasons that using statements should not be in header files: namespace pollution. If you want to use macros in a header file, make sure that you undefine them at the end of the header, this way they will not be included erroneously. If you simply want to define them in a header and use them in cpp files make sure that the "macros.h" is never included in any header.
The who point of this is that a end user of what ever public API you are developing may not want or expect, for example, sum(a, b) to expand to (a) + (b). Finding the source of one's own macro error can be a nightmare, finding someone else can be almost impossible.
Related
Just out of curiosity I wanted to know if is there a way to achieve this.
In C++ we learn that we should avoid using macros. But when we use include guards, we do use at least one macro. So I was wondering if there is a way to write a macro-free program.
It's definitely possible, though it's unimaginably bad practice not to have include guards. It's important to understand what the #include statement actually does: the contents of another file are pasted directly into your source file before it's compiled. An include guard prevents the same code from being pasted again.
Including a file only causes an error if it would be incorrect to type the contents of that file at the position you included it. As an example, you can declare (note: declare, not define) the same function (or class) multiple times in a single compilation unit. If your header file consists only of declarations, you don't need to specify an include guard.
IncludedFile.h
class SomeClassSomewhere;
void SomeExternalFunction(int x, char y);
Main.cpp
#include "IncludedFile.h"
#include "IncludedFile.h"
#include "IncludedFile.h"
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
return 0;
}
While declaring a function (or class) multiple times is fine, it isn't okay to define the same function (or class) more than once. If there are two or more definitions for a function, the linker doesn't know which one to choose and gives up with a "multiply defined symbols" error.
In C++, it's very common for header files to include class definitions. An include guard prevents the #included file from being pasted into your source file a second time, which means your definitions will only appear once in the compiled code, and the linker won't be confused.
Rather than trying to figure out when you need to use them and when you don't, just always use include guards. Avoiding macros most of the time is a good idea; this is one situation where they aren't evil, and using them here isn't dangerous.
It is definitely doable and I have used some early C++ libraries which followed an already misguided approach from C which essentially required the user of a header to include certain other headers before this. This is based on thoroughly understanding what creates a dependency on what else and to use declarations rather than definitions wherever possible:
Declarations can be repeated multiple times although they are obviously required to be consistent and some entities can't be declared (e.g. enum can only be defined; in C++ 2011 it is possible to also declare enums).
Definitions can't be repeated but are only needed when the definition if really used. For example, using a pointer or a reference to a class doesn't need its definition but only its declaration.
The approach to writing headers would, thus, essentially consist of trying to avoid definitions as much as possible and only use declaration as far as possible: these can be repeated in a header file or corresponding headers can even be included multiple times. The primary need for definitions comes in when you need to derive from a base class: this can't be avoided and essentially means that the user would have to include the header for the base class before using any of the derived classes. The same is true for members defined directly in the class but using the pimpl-idiom the need for member definitions can be pushed to the implementation file.
Although there are a few advantages to this approach it also has a few severe drawbacks. The primary advantage is that it kind of enforces a very thorough separation and dependency management. On the other hand, overly aggressive separation e.g. using the pimpl-idiom for everything also has a negative performance impact. The biggest drawback is that a lot the implementation details are implicitly visible to the user of a header because the respective headers this one depends on need to be included first explicitly. At least, the compiler enforces that you get the order of include files right.
From a usability and dependency point of view I think there is a general consensus that headers are best self-contained and that the use of include guards is the lesser evil.
It is possible to do so if you ensure the same header file is not being included in the same translation unit multiple times.
Also, you could use:
#pragma once
if portability is not your concern.
However, you should avoid using #pragma once over Include Guards because:
It is not standard & hence non portable.
It is less intuitive and not all users might know of it.
It provides no big advantage over the classic and very well known Include Guards.
In short, yes, even without pragmas. Only if you can guarantee that every header file is included only once. However, given how code tends to grow, it becomes increasingly difficult to honour that guarantee as the number of header files increase. This is why not using header guards is considered bad practice.
Pre-processor macros are frowned upon, yes. However, header include guards are a necessary evil because the alternative is so much worse (#pragma once will only work if your compiler supports it, so you lose portability)
With regard to pre-processor macros, use this rule:
If you can come up with an elegant solution that does not involve a macro, then avoid them.
Does the non-portable, non-standard
#pragma once
work sufficiently well for you? Personally, I'd rather use macros for preventing reinclusion, but that's your decision.
Is it reasonable to put custom headers higher in include section than standard headers?
For example include section in someclass.hpp:
#include "someclass.h"
#include "global.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
Is it best practice? What is the profit if it is?
The reason is that if you forget to include a dependent header in someclass.h, then whatever implementation file includes it as the first header, will get a warning/error of undefined or undeclared type, and whatnot. If you include other headers first, then you could be masking that fact - supposing the included headers define the required types, functions, etc. Example:
my_type.h:
// Supressed include guards, etc
typedef float my_type;
someclass.h:
// Supressed include guards, etc
class SomeClass {
public:
my_type value;
};
someclass.cpp:
#include "my_type.h" // Contains definition for my_type.
#include "someclass.h" // Will compile because my_type is defined.
...
This will compile fine. But imagine you want to use use SomeClass in your program. If you don't include my_type.h before including someclass.h, you'll get a compiler error saying my_type is undefined. Example:
#include "someclass.h"
int main() {
SomeClass obj;
obj.value = 1.0;
}
It is fairly common practice to #include "widget.h" as the first thing in widget.cpp. What this does is ensure that widget.h is self-contained, i.e. does not inadvertently depend on other header files.
Beyond that, I think it's essentially a matter of personal preference.
There are two important observations to be made before delving in the specifics:
When you develop a new header/source pair, it is important to check that the header is self-contained. To do so, the easiest way is to include first in a file.
It is best not to include extraneous things before including a header you do not own, as this could create strange issues in case of conflict of macros or overload of functions.
Therefore, the answer depend if you have unit test or not.
A general rule of thumb is to include headers starting with the Standard Library, then 3rd party headers (including Open Source projects), then your own middleware, utilities, etc... and finally the headers local to this library. It more or less follows the order of dependencies to comply with observation 2.
The only exception I have seen was the one header corresponding to the current source file, which would be included first to make sure it is self-contained (observation 1)... but this only holds if you don't have unit tests, for if you do then the unit test source file is a very good place to check this.
While it is just personal choice, I would prefer to include standard headers first. Few reasons:
Any set of #ifdef..#define would be correctly mapped, rather than standard headers misinterpreting them. This goes for conditional compilation as well as values of some macros, while standard headers are being compiled.
Any change/new function in standard header may conflict with your function, and compiler would emit error in header file, which would be be complicated to solve.
All required standard headers should be placed in one header (preferbly some pre-compiled-header), include that header, and then include your custom header. This would reduce compilation time.
Start with the system headers.
If there are no dependencies between the headers both ways work, but since programming is essentially communication, not with the computer but with other humans, it is important to make it logical and easy to understand. And my opinion is that it is better to start with the system headers.
I base this one of my very first programming courses (in 1984, I think), where we programmed in Lisp and were taught to think like this: you start with the normal Lisp language, and then you create a new language that is more useful for your application by adding some functions and data types. If you for example add dates and the ability to manipulate dates, this new language could be called Lisp-with-dates. Then you could use Lisp-with-dates to create a new language with calendar functionality, which could be called Lisp-with-calendars. Like layers in an onion.
Similarly, you can view C as having a "core" language, without any headers, and then you can for example expand this language into a new, bigger language with I/O functionality by #including stdio.h. You add more and more stuff to the core language by #including more headers. (I am aware that the term "C language" in other contexts refers to the entire standard, with all the standard headers, but bear with me here.) Each new #included header creates a new, bigger language, and an additional layer of the onion.
Now, to me it seems that the standard headers obviously should be the inner part of this onion, and therefore before the custom headers. You can create the language C-with-monsters by adding stuff to C-with-I/O, but the people who created C-with-I/O did not start with C-with-monsters.
any place you include c++ compiler treats it as the same
I know why include guards exist, and that #pragma once is not standard and thus not supported by all compilers etc.
My question is of a different kind:
Is there any sensible reason to ever not have them? I've yet to come across a situation where theoretically, there would be any benefit of not providing include guards in a file that is meant to be included somewhere else. Does anyone have an example where there is an actual benefit of not having them?
The reason I ask - to me they seem pretty redundant, as you always use them, and that the behaviour of #pragma once could as well just be automatically applied to literally everything.
I've seen headers that generate code depending on macros defined before their inclusion. In this case it's sometimes wanted to define those macros to one (set of) value(s), include the header, redefine the macros, and include again.
Everybody who sees such agrees that it's ugly and best avoided, but sometimes (like if the code in said headers is generated by some other means) it's the lesser evil to do that.
Other than that, I can't think of a reason.
#sbi already talked about code generation, so let me give an example.
Say that you have an enumeration of a lot of items, and that you would like to generate a bunch of functions for each of its elements...
One solution is to use this multiple inclusion trick.
// myenumeration.td
MY_ENUMERATION_META_FUNCTION(Item1)
MY_ENUMERATION_META_FUNCTION(Item2)
MY_ENUMERATION_META_FUNCTION(Item3)
MY_ENUMERATION_META_FUNCTION(Item4)
MY_ENUMERATION_META_FUNCTION(Item5)
Then people just use it like so:
#define MY_ENUMERATION_META_FUNCTION(Item_) \
case Item_: return #Item_;
char const* print(MyEnum i)
{
switch(i) {
#include "myenumeration.td"
}
__unreachable__("print");
return 0; // to shut up gcc
}
#undef MY_ENUMERATION_META_FUNCTION
Whether this is nice or hackish is up to you, but clearly it is useful not to have to crawl through all the utilities functions each time a new value is added to the enum.
<cassert>
<assert.h>
"The assert macro is redefined according to the current state of NDEBUG each time that
<assert.h> is included."
It can be a problem if you have two headers in a project which use the same include guard, e.g. if you have two third party libraries, and they both have a header which uses an include guard symbol such as __CONSTANTS_H__, then you won't be able to successfully #include both headers in a given compilation unit. A better solution is #pragma once, but some older compilers do not support this.
Suppose you have a third party library, and you can't modify its code. Now suppose including files from this library generates compiler warnings. You would normally want to compile your own code at high warning levels, but doing so would generate a large set of warnings from using the library. You could write warning disabler/enabler headers that you could then wrap around the third party library, and they should be able to be included multiple times.
Another more sophisticated kind of use is Boost's Preprocessor iteration construct:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_46_0/libs/preprocessor/doc/index.html
The problem with #pragma once, and the reason it is not part of the standard, is that it just doesn't always work everywhere. How does the compiler know if two files are the same file or not, if included from different paths?
Think about it, what happens if the compiler makes a mistake and fails to include a file that it should have included? What happens if it includes a file twice, that it shouldn't have? How would you fix that?
With include guards, the worst that can happen is that it takes a bit longer to compile.
Edit:
Check out this thread on comp.std.c++ "#pragma once in ISO standard yet?"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c++/browse_thread/thread/c527240043c8df92
I've got a C/C++ question, can I reuse functions across different object files or projects without writing the function headers twice? (one for defining the function and one for declaring it)
I don't know much about C/C++, Delphi and D. I assume that in Delphi or D, you would just write once what arguments a function takes and then you can use the function across diferent projects.
And in C you need the function declaration in header files *again??, right?. Is there a good tool that will create header files from C sources? I've got one, but it's not preprocessor-aware and not very strict. And I've had some macro technique that worked rather bad.
I'm looking for ways to program in C/C++ like described here http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/pretod.html
Imho, generating the headers from the source is a bad idea and is unpractical.
Headers can contain more information that just function names and parameters.
Here are some examples:
a C++ header can define an abstract class for which a source file may be unneeded
A template can only be defined in a header file
Default parameters are only specified in the class definition (thus in the header file)
You usually write your header, then write the implementation in a corresponding source file.
I think doing the other way around is counter-intuitive and doesn't fit with the spirit of C or C++.
The only exception is can see to that is the static functions. A static function only appears in its source file (.cor .cpp) and can't (obviously) be used elsewhere.
While I agree it is often annoying to copy the header definition of a method/function to the source file, you can probably configure your code editor to ease this. I use Vim and a quick script helped me with this a lot. I guess a similar solution exists for most other editors.
Anyway, while this can seem annoying, keep in mind it also gives a greater flexibility. You can distribute your header files (.h, .hpp or whatever) and then transparently change the implementation in source files afterward.
Also, just to mention it, there is no such thing as C/C++: there is C and there is C++; those are different languages (which indeed share much, but still).
It seems to me that you don't really need/want to auto-generate headers from source; you want to be able to write a single file and have a tool that can intelligently split that into a header file and a source file.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any such tool. It's certainly possible to write one - but you'd need a given a C++ front end. You could try writing something using clang - but it would be a significant amount of work.
Considering you have declared some functions and wrote their implementation you will have a .c/cpp file and a header .h file.
What you must do in order to use those functions:
Create a library (DLL/so or static library .a/.lib - for now I recommend static library for the ease of use) from the files were the implementation resides
Use the header file (#include it) (you don't need to rewrite the header file again) in your programs to obtain the function definitions and link with your library from step 1.
Though >this< is an example for Visual Studio it makes perfect sense for other development environments also.
This seems like a rudimentary question, so assuming I have not mis-read,
Here is a basic example of re-use, to answer your first question:
#include "stdio.h"
int main( int c, char ** argv ){
puts( "Hello world" );
}
Explanation:
1. stdio.h is a C header file containing (among others) the definition of a function called puts().
2. in main, puts() is called, from the included definition.
Some compilers (including gcc I think ) have an option to generate headers.
There is always very much confusion about headers and source-files in C++. The links I provided should help to clear that up a little.
If you are in the situation that you want to extract headers from source-file, then you probably went about it the wrong way. Usually you first declare your function in a header-file, and then provide an implementation (definition) for it in a source-file. If your function is actually a method of a class, you can also provide the definition in header file.
Technically, a header file is just a bunch of text that is actually inserted into the source file by the preprocessor:
#include <vector>
tells the preprocessor to insert contents of the file vector at the exact place where the #include appears. This really just text-replacement. So, header-files are not some kind of special language construct. They contain normal code. But by putting that code into a separate file, you can easily include it in other files using the preprocessor.
I think it's a good question which is what led me to ask this: Visual studio: automatically update C++ cpp/header file when the other is changed?
There are some refactoring tools mentioned but unfortunately I don't think there's a perfect solution; you simply have to write your function signatures twice. The exception is when you are writing your implementations inline, but there are reasons why you can't or shouldn't always do this.
You might be interested in Lazy C++. However, you should do a few projects the old-fashioned way (with separate header and source files) before attempting to use this tool. I considered using it myself, but then figured I would always be accidentally editing the generated files instead of the lzz file.
You could just put all the definitions in the header file...
This goes against common practice, but is not unheard of.
Is there such macro in C++ (cross-compiler or compiler-specific):
#if isclass(NameSpace::MyClass)
Would be useful.
No. Preprocessing directives and macros are evaluated by the preprocessor, which completes its tasks before the code is parsed as C++. The preprocessor has no knowledge of classes or namespaces.
If you do not care about portability, the __if_exists statement in VC++ meets your needs.
There is no such thing at the preprocessing stage, so no macro.
However you can have a look at the is_class type traits available in Boost or in C++0x that enable you to take decisions at compile time.
That's not possible, but you could use your include guard constant to verify that the class has been included.
It sounds to me like it would be better to test if the header file with the class definition you're looking for has been included yet, instead of trying to see if the class exists. It's really easy to check this if you've been implementing the standard of defining a symbol for each header file, as shown:
// myfile.h
#ifndef _MYFILE_H_
#define _MYFILE_H_
// CODE
#endif // _MYFILE_H_
Your best bet though, is to just make sure your header files are being included in the right order in the first place. The easiest way to do this is to have an "overall" header file that in turn includes all the headers you will need in the correct order. Simply include that in each of the source files in your project, and you'll be good to go. This isn't necessarily the best solution, but it is the easiest.