I've made a programm with libraries.
One library has a interface for to include a header for an extern programm call:
class IDA{
private:
class IDA_A;
IDA_A *p_IDA_A;
public:
IDA();
~IDA();
void A_Function(const char *A_String);
};
Then I opened the header with Kate and placed
class IDA_A;
IDA_A *p_IDA_A;
into the public part.
And this worked?! But why? And can I avoid that?
Greeting
Earlybite
And this worked?!
Yes
But why?
private, protected and public are just hints to the C+++ compiler how the data structure is supposed to be used. The C++ compiler will error out if piece of C++ source doesn't follow this, but that's it.
It has no effect whatsoever on the memory layout. In particular the C++ standard mandates, that member variables of a class must be laid out in memory in the order they are declared in the class definition.
And can I avoid that?
No. In the same way you can not avoid, that some other piece of code static_casts a (opaque) pointer to your class to char* and dumps it out to a file as is, completely with vtable and everything.
If you really want to avoid the user of a library to "look inside" you must give them some handle value and internally use a map (std::map or similar) to look up the actual instance from the handle value. I do this in some of the libraries I develop, for robustness reasons, but also because some of the programming environments there are bindings for don't deal properly with pointers.
Of course this works. The whole private-public stuff is only checked by the compiler. There are no runtime-checks for this. If the library is already compiled, the user only needs the library file (shared object) and the header files for development. If you afterwards change the header file in the pattern you mentioned, IDA_A is considered public by the compiler.
How can you avoid that? There is no way for this. If another user changes your headerfile, you can do nothing about it. Also is the question: Why bother with it? It can have very ugly side-effects if the headerfile for an already compiled lib is been changed. So the one who changes it also has to deal with the issues. There is just some stuff you dont do. One of them is moving stuff in headers around for libraries (unless you are currently developing on that library).
You've got access to the p_IDA_A member variable, and this is always possible in the manner you've outlined. But it is of type IDA_A, which for which you only have a declaration, but not the definition. So you can not do anything meaningful with it. (This method of data hiding is called the pimpl idiom).
Related
What I mean is my real header file can look like this:
#include "some_internal_class.h"
class MyLibrary {
Type private_member;
void private_function();
public:
MyLibrary();
void function_to_be_called_by_library_users();
};
Now I want to produce a dynamic library containing all the necessary definitions. and I want to ship with it a single header instead of shipping every single header I have in my library.
So I was thinking I could create a slim version of my header like so:
class MyLibrary {
public:
MyLibrary();
void function_to_be_called_by_library_users();
};
Headers are just declarations anyway right? they're never passed to the compiler. And I've declared what the user will be using.
Is that possible? If not, why not?
This is a One Definition Rule violation. The moment you deviate by a single token.
[basic.def.odr]/6
There can be more than one definition of a class type, [...] in a
program provided that each definition appears in a different
translation unit, and provided the definitions satisfy the following
requirements. Given such an entity named D defined in more than one
translation unit, then
each definition of D shall consist of the same sequence of tokens; and
Your program may easily break if you violate the ODR like that. And your build system isn't at all obligated to even warn you about it.
You cannot define a class twice. It breaks the One Definition Rule (ODT). MyLibrary does that, unfortunately.
they're never passed to the compiler
They will. Members of a class must be known at compile time, so that the compiler can determine the class's size.
Header are just declarations anyway right? they're never passed to the
compiler. And I've declared what the user will be using.
No. Headers are part of source code and are compiled together with source files. They contain the information necessary for a compiler to understand how to work with code (in your case, with class MyLibrary).
As an example, you want library users to be able to create objects of class MyLibrary, so you export the constructor. However, this is not sufficient: the compiler needs to know the size of the object to be created, which is impossible unless you specify all the fields.
In practice, deciding what to expose to library users and what to hide as implementation details is a hard question, which requires detailed inspection of the library usage and semantics. If you really want to hide the class internals as implementation detail, here are some common options:
The pimpl idiom is a common solution. It enables you to work with the class as it is usually done, but the implementation details are nicely hidden.
Extract the interface into an abstract class with virtual functions, and use pointers (preferably smart pointers) to work with the objects.
Headers are just declarations anyway right? they're never passed to the compiler.
The moment you do a #include to a file, its content are copied and pasted into your source file exactly as they are.
So even though you don't pass them directly as compiler arguments, they're still part of your code and code in them will be compiled into your translation units.
Solutions by #lisyarus are pretty good.
But another option would be doing it the C way. Which is the most elegant in my opinion.
In C you give your users a handle, which will most likely be a pointer.
Your header would look something like this:
struct MyLibrary;
MyLibrary*
my_library_init();
void
my_library_destroy(MyLibrary*);
void
my_library_function_to_be_called_by_library_users(MyLibrary*);
A very small and simple interface that does not show your users anything you don't want them to see.
Another nice perk is that your build system will not have to recompile your whole program just because you added a field to the MyLibrary struct.
You have to watch out though, because now you have to call my_library_destroy which will carry the logic of your destructor.
Are (seemingly) shady things ever acceptable for practical reasons?
First, a bit of background on my code. I'm writing the graphics module of my 2D game. My module contains more than two classes, but I'll only mention two in here: Font and GraphicsRenderer.
Font provides an interface through which to load (and release) files and nothing much more. In my Font header I don't want any implementation details to leak, and that includes the data types of the third-party library I'm using. The way I prevent the third-party lib from being visible in the header is through an incomplete type (I understand this is standard practice):
class Font
{
private:
struct FontData;
boost::shared_ptr<FontData> data_;
};
GraphicsRenderer is the (read: singleton) device that initializes and finalizes the third-party graphics library and also is used to render graphical objects (such as Fonts, Images, etc). The reason it's a singleton is because, as I've said, the class initializes the third-party library automatically; it does this when the singleton object is created and exits the library when the singleton is destroyed.
Anyway, in order for GR to be able to render Font it must obviously have access to its FontData object. One option would be to have a public getter, but that would expose the implementation of Font (no other class other than Font and GR should care about FontData). Instead I considered it's better to make GR a friend of Font.
Note: Until now I've done two things that some may consider shady (singleton and friend), but these are not the things I want to ask you about. Nevertheless, if you think my rationale for making GR a singleton and a friend of Font is wrong please do criticize me and maybe offer better solutions.
The shady thing. So GR has access to Font::data_ though friendship, but how does it know exactly what a FontData is (since it's not defined in the header, it's an incomplete type)? I'll just show the code and the comment that includes the rationale...
// =============================================================================
// graphics/font.cpp
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
struct Font::FontData
: public sf::Font
{
// Just a synonym of sf::Font
};
// A redefinition of FontData exists in GraphicsRenderer::printText(),
// which will have to be modified as well if this definition is modified.
// (The redefinition is called FontDataSurogate.)
// Why not have FontData defined only once in a separate header:
// If the definition of FontData changes, most likely printText() text will
// have to be altered also regardless. Considering that and also that FontData
// has (and should have) a very simple definition, a separate header was
// considered too much of an overhead and of little practical advantage.
// =============================================================================
// graphics/graphics_renderer.cpp
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
void GraphicsRenderer::printText(const Font& fnt /* ... */)
{
struct FontDataSurogate
: public sf::Font {
};
FontDataSurogate* suro = (FontDataSurogate*)fnt.data_.get();
sf::Font& font = (sf::Font)(*suro);
// ...
}
So that's the shady thing I'm trying to do. Basically what I want is a review of my rationale, so please tell me if you think I've done something horrendous or if not confirm my rationale so I can be a bit surer I'm doing the right thing. :) (This is my biggest project yet and I'm only at the beginning so I'm kinda feeling things in the dark atm.)
In general, if something looks sketchy, I've found that it's often worth going back a few times and trying to figure out exactly why that's necessary. In most cases, some kind of fix pops up (maybe not as "nice", but not relying on any kind of trick).
Now, the first issue I see in your example is this bit of code:
struct FontDataSurogate
: public sf::Font {
};
occurs twice, in different files (neither being a header). That may come back and be a bother when you change one but not the other in the future, and making sure both are identical will very likely be a pain.
To solve that, I would suggest putting the definition to FontDataSurogate and the appropriate includes (whatever library/header defines sf::Font) in a separate header. From the two files that need to use FontDataSurogate, include that definition header (not from any other code files or headers, just those two).
If you have a main class declaration header for your library, place the forward declaration for the class there, and use pointers in your objects and parameters (regular pointers or shared pointers).
You can then use friend or add a get method to retrieve the data, but by moving the class definition to its own header, you've created a single copy of that code and have a single object/file that's interfacing with the other library.
Edit:
You commented on the question while I was writing this, so I'll add on a reply to your comment.
"Too much overhead" - more to document, one more thing to include, the complexity of the code grows, etc.
Not so. You will have one copy of the code, compared to the two that must remain identical now. The code exists either way, so it needs documented, but your complexity and particularly maintenance is simplified. You do gain two #include statements, but is that such a high cost?
"Little practical advantage" - printText() would have to be modified every time FontData is modified regardless of whether or not it's defined in a separate header or not.
The advantage is less duplicate code, making it easier to maintain for you (and others). Modifying the function when the input data changes is not surprising or unusual really. Moving it to another header doesn't cost you anything but the mentioned includes.
friend is fine, and encouraged. See C++ FAQ Lite's rationale for more info: Do friends violate encapsulation?
This line is indeed horrendous, as it invokes undefined behavior: FontDataSurogate* suro = (FontDataSurogate*)fnt.data_.get();
You forward declare the existence of the FontData struct, and then go on to fully declare it in two locations: Font, and GraphicsRenderer. Ew. Now you have to manually keep these exactly binary compatible.
I'm sure it works, but you're right, it is kindof shady. But whenever we say such-and-such is eeevil, we mean to avoid a certain practice, with the caveat that sometimes it can be useful. That being said, I don't think this is one of those times.
One technique is to invert your handling. Instead of putting all of the logic inside GraphicsRenderer, put some of it inside Font. Like so:
class Font
{
public:
void do_something_with_fontdata(GraphicsRenderer& gr);
private:
struct FontData;
boost::shared_ptr<FontData> data_;
};
void GraphicsRenderer::printText(const Font& fnt /* ... */)
{
fnt.do_something_with_fontdata(*this);
}
This way, the Font details are kept within the Font class, and even GraphicsRenderer doesn't need to know the specifics of the implementation. This solves the friend issue too (although I don't think friend is all that bad to use).
Depending on how your code is laid out, and what it's doing, attempting to invert it like this may be quite difficult. If that is the case, simply move the real declaration of FontData to its own header file, and use it in both Font and GraphicsRenderer.
You've spent a lot more effort asking this question then you've supposedly saved by duplicating that code.
You state three reasons you didn't want to add the file:
Extra include
Extra Documentation
Extra Complexity
But I would have to say that 2 and 3 are increased by duplicating that code. Now you document what its doing in the original place and what the fried monkey its doing defined again in another random place in the code base. And duplicating code can only increase the complexity of a project.
The only thing you are saving is an include file. But files are cheap. You should not be afraid of creating them. There is almost zero cost (or at least there should be) to add a new header file.
The advantages of doing this properly:
The compiler doesn't have to make the definition you give compatible
Someday, somebody is going to modify the FontData class without modifying PrintText(), maybe they should modify PrintText(), but they either haven't done it yet or don't know that they need to. Or perhaps in a way that simply hasn't occoured to additional data on FontData make sense. Regardless, the different pieces of code will operate on different assumptions and will explode in a very hard to trace bug.
Most C++ class method signatures are duplicated between the declaration normally in a header files and the definition in the source files in the code I have read. I find this repetition undesirable and code written this way suffers from poor locality of reference. For instance, the methods in source files often reference instance variables declared in the header file; you end up having to constantly switch between header files and source files when reading code.
Would anyone recommend a way to avoid doing so? Or, am I mainly going to confuse experienced C++ programmers by not doing things in the usual way?
See also Question 538255 C++ code in header files where someone is told that everything should go in the header.
There is an alternative, but the cure is worse than the illness — define all the function bodies in the header, or even inline in the class, like C#. The downsides are that this will bloat compile times significantly, and it'll annoy veteran C++ programmers. It can also get you into some annoying situations of circular dependency that, while solvable, are a nuisance to deal with.
Personally, I just set my IDE to have a vertical split, and put the header file on the right side and the source file on the left.
I assume you're talking about member function declarations in a header file and definitions in source files?
If you're used to the Java/Python/etc. model, it may well seem redundant. In fact, if you were so inclined, you could define all functions inline in the class definition (in the header file). But, you'd definitely be breaking with convention and paying the price of additional coupling and compilation time every time you changed anything minor in the implementation.
C++, Ada, and other languages originally designed for large scale systems kept definitions hidden for a reason--there's no good reason that the users of a class should have to be concerned with its implementation, nor any reason they should have to repeatedly pay to compile it. Less of an issue nowadays with faster systems, but still relevant for really large systems. Additionally, TDD, stubbing and other testing strategies are facilitated by the isolation and quicker compilation.
Don't break with convention. In the end, you will make a ball of worms that doesn't work very well. Plus, compilers will hate you. C/C++ are setup that way for a reason.
C++ language supports function overloading, which means that the entire function signature is basically a way to identify a specific function. For this reason, as long as you declare and define function separately, there's really no redundancy in having to list the parameters again. More precisely, having to list the parameter types is not redundant. Parameters names, on the other hand, play no role in this process and you are free to omit them in the declaration (i.e in the header file), although I belive this limits readability.
You "can" get around the problem. You define an abstract interface class that only contains the pure virtual functions that an outside application will call. Then in the CPP file you provide the actual class that derives from the interface and contains all the class variables. You implement as normal now. The only thing this requires is a way to instantiate the derived implementation class from the interface class. You could do that by providing a static "Create" function that has its implementation in the CPP file.
ie
InterfaceClass* InterfaceClass::Create()
{
return new ImplementationClass;
}
This way you effectively hide the implementation from any outside user. You can't, however, create the class on the stack only on the heap ... but it does solve your problem AND provides a better layer of abstraction. In the end though if you aren't prepared to do this you need to stick with what you are doing.
I am fairly new to C++ and I have seen a bunch of code that has method definitions in the header files and they do not declare the header file as a class. Can someone explain to me why and when you would do something like this. Is this a bad practice?
Thanks in advance!
Is this a bad practice?
Not in general. There are a lot of libraries that are header only, meaning they only ship header files. This can be seen as a lightweight alternative to compiled libraries.
More importantly, though, there is a case where you cannot use separate precompiled compilation units: templates must be specialized in the same compilation unit in which they get declared. This may sound arcane but it has a simple consequence:
Function (and class) templates cannot be defined inside cpp files and used elsewhere; instead, they have to be defined inside header files directly (with a few notable exceptions).
Additionally, classes in C++ are purely optional – while you can program object oriented in C++, a lot of good code doesn't. Classes supplement algorithms in C++, not the other way round.
It's not bad practice. The great thing about C++ is that it lets you program in many styles. This gives the language great flexibility and utility, but possibly makes it trickier to learn than other languages that force you to write code in a particular style.
If you had a small program, you could write it in one function - possibly using a couple of goto's for code flow.
When you get bigger, splitting the code into functions helps organize things.
Bigger still, and classes are generally a good way of grouping related functions that work on a certain set of data.
Bigger still, namespaces help out.
Sometimes though, it's just easiest to write a function to do something. This is often the case where you write a function that only works on primitive types (like int). int doesn't have a class, so if you wanted to write a printInt() function, you might make it standalone. Also, if a function works on objects from multiple classes, but doesn't really belong to one class and not the other, that might make sense as a standalone function. This happens a lot when you write operators such as define less than so that it can compare objects of two different classes. Or, if a function can be written in terms of a classes public methods, and doesn't need to access data of the class directly, some people prefer to write that as a standalone function.
But, really, the choice is yours. Whatever is the most simple thing to do to solve your problem is best.
You might start a program off as just a few functions, and then later decide some are related and refactor them into a class. But, if the other standalone functions don't naturally fit into a class, you don't have to force them into one.
An H file is simply a way of including a bunch of declarations. Many things in C++ are useful declarations, including classes, types, constants, global functions, etc.
C++ has a strong object oriented facet. Most OO languages tackle the question of where to deal with operations that don't rely on object state and don't actually need the object.
In some languages, like Java, language restrictions force everything to be in a class, so everything becomes a static member function (e.g., classes with math utilities or algorithms).
In C++, to maintain compatibility with C, you are allowed to declare standalone C-style functions or use the Java style of static members. My personal view is that it is better, when possible, to use the OO style and organize operations around a central concept.
However, C++ does provide the namespaces facilities and often it is used in the same way that a class would be used in those situations - to group a bunch of standalone items where each item is prefixed by the "namespace" name. As others point out, many C++ standard library functions are located this way. My view is that this is much like using a class in Java. However, others would argue that Java uses classes because it doesn't have namespaces.
As long as you use one or the other (rather than a floating standalone non-namespaced function) you're generally going to be ok.
I am fairly new to C++ and I have seen a bunch of code that has method definitions in the header files and they do not declare the header file as a class.
Lets clarify things.
method definitions in the header files
This means something like this:
file "A.h":
class A {
void method(){/*blah blah*/} //definition of a method
};
Is this what you meant?
Later you are saying "declare the header file". There is no mechanism for DECLARING a file in C++. A file can be INCLUDED by witing #include "filename.h". If you do this, the contents of the header file will be copied and pasted to wherever you have the above line before anything gets compiled.
So you mean that all the definitions are in the class definition (not anywhere in A.h FILE, but specifically in the class A, which is limited by 'class A{' and '};' ).
The implication of having method definition in the class definition is that the method will be 'inline' (this is C++ keyword), which means that the method body will be pasted whenever there is a call to it. This is:
good, because the function call mechanism no longer slows down the execution
bad if the function is longer than a short statement, because the size of executable code grows badly
Things are different for templates as someone above stated, but for them there is a way of defining methods such that they are not inline, but still in the header file (they must be in headers). This definitions have to be outside the class definition anyway.
In C++, functions do not have to be members of classes.
As I understand, the pimpl idiom is exists only because C++ forces you to place all the private class members in the header. If the header were to contain only the public interface, theoretically, any change in class implementation would not have necessitated a recompile for the rest of the program.
What I want to know is why C++ is not designed to allow such a convenience. Why does it demand at all for the private parts of a class to be openly displayed in the header (no pun intended)?
This has to do with the size of the object. The h file is used, among other things, to determine the size of the object. If the private members are not given in it, then you would not know how large an object to new.
You can simulate, however, your desired behavior by the following:
class MyClass
{
public:
// public stuff
private:
#include "MyClassPrivate.h"
};
This does not enforce the behavior, but it gets the private stuff out of the .h file.
On the down side, this adds another file to maintain.
Also, in visual studio, the intellisense does not work for the private members - this could be a plus or a minus.
I think there is a confusion here. The problem is not about headers. Headers don't do anything (they are just ways to include common bits of source text among several source-code files).
The problem, as much as there is one, is that class declarations in C++ have to define everything, public and private, that an instance needs to have in order to work. (The same is true of Java, but the way reference to externally-compiled classes works makes the use of anything like shared headers unnecessary.)
It is in the nature of common Object-Oriented Technologies (not just the C++ one) that someone needs to know the concrete class that is used and how to use its constructor to deliver an implementation, even if you are using only the public parts. The device in (3, below) hides it. The practice in (1, below) separates the concerns, whether you do (3) or not.
Use abstract classes that define only the public parts, mainly methods, and let the implementation class inherit from that abstract class. So, using the usual convention for headers, there is an abstract.hpp that is shared around. There is also an implementation.hpp that declares the inherited class and that is only passed around to the modules that implement methods of the implementation. The implementation.hpp file will #include "abstract.hpp" for use in the class declaration it makes, so that there is a single maintenance point for the declaration of the abstracted interface.
Now, if you want to enforce hiding of the implementation class declaration, you need to have some way of requesting construction of a concrete instance without possessing the specific, complete class declaration: you can't use new and you can't use local instances. (You can delete though.) Introduction of helper functions (including methods on other classes that deliver references to class instances) is the substitute.
Along with or as part of the header file that is used as the shared definition for the abstract class/interface, include function signatures for external helper functions. These function should be implemented in modules that are part of the specific class implementations (so they see the full class declaration and can exercise the constructor). The signature of the helper function is probably much like that of the constructor, but it returns an instance reference as a result (This constructor proxy can return a NULL pointer and it can even throw exceptions if you like that sort of thing). The helper function constructs a particular implementation instance and returns it cast as a reference to an instance of the abstract class.
Mission accomplished.
Oh, and recompilation and relinking should work the way you want, avoiding recompilation of calling modules when only the implementation changes (since the calling module no longer does any storage allocations for the implementations).
You're all ignoring the point of the question -
Why must the developer type out the PIMPL code?
For me, the best answer I can come up with is that we don't have a good way to express C++ code that allows you to operate on it. For instance, compile-time (or pre-processor, or whatever) reflection or a code DOM.
C++ badly needs one or both of these to be available to a developer to do meta-programming.
Then you could write something like this in your public MyClass.h:
#pragma pimpl(MyClass_private.hpp)
And then write your own, really quite trivial wrapper generator.
Someone will have a much more verbose answer than I, but the quick response is two-fold: the compiler needs to know all the members of a struct to determine the storage space requirements, and the compiler needs to know the ordering of those members to generate offsets in a deterministic way.
The language is already fairly complicated; I think a mechanism to split the definitions of structured data across the code would be a bit of a calamity.
Typically, I've always seen policy classes used to define implementation behavior in a Pimpl-manner. I think there are some added benefits of using a policy pattern -- easier to interchange implementations, can easily combine multiple partial implementations into a single unit which allow you to break up the implementation code into functional, reusable units, etc.
May be because the size of the class is required when passing its instance by values, aggregating it in other classes, etc ?
If C++ did not support value semantics, it would have been fine, but it does.
Yes, but...
You need to read Stroustrup's "Design and Evolution of C++" book. It would have inhibited the uptake of C++.