I'm trying to use two old (and different) usb libraries in a bigger project by encapsulating them into their own namespace like so:
namespace usbA {
#include "/msp430/usb.h"
}
namespace usbB {
#include "/cypress/usb.h"
}
This leads to linker errors obviously because the names in the actual libraries are not decorated with the namespaces as are the function calls.
Can this be solved without editing the libraries code?
According to some other posters answers this cannot be done. This begs the question of what are namespaces good for then? If I have to go in and modify library source code I can as well prefix each function with "usbA_" instead of using namespace at all. It's equally inflexible.
This leads to linker errors obviously because the names in the actual libraries are not decorated with the namespaces as are the function calls. Can this be solved without editing the libraries code?
I'm sure there will be ghastly ways to hack this, but I would really just … not. In my opinion it's bound to end in tears.
If you really need both libraries, and their names really conflict, I think on balance you're probably best off forking them and giving them namespaces yourself.
This begs the question of what are namespaces good for then?
They're good for nothing if you don't use them (and C code obviously doesn't use them). If these libraries were C++ projects with namespaces, then you wouldn't have this problem, which is good for quite a lot.
It's equally inflexible
Well, this is why C++ introduced namespaces. Sadly you can't force everyone to write C++.
I have read in several places that single segment namespaces are discouraged in clojure.
Indeed almost every library I've seen has (require 'lib.core) instead of (require 'lib).
Why?
Edit: I am a bit stupid. Extra credit will be given for a concise example of how a single segment namespace might be a bad thing.
Java discourages the use of the default package because you can't refer to anything in it from any other package. If you pre-compile a one-segment Clojure namespace, you'll get a Java class in the default package. If anyone at any time wants to use your library from Java, he will be stopped dead by this triviality. As there is no good reason in favor of using a single-segment namespace, and there is this one well-defined reason not to, it is fair to say that single-segment namespaces should be a discouraged practice in Clojure.
Single segment namespaces have issues with Java interop. Some things may break in unexpected ways. See also https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/clojure/gOffhotk25Y
Some people claim that using namespace std; is bad practice. Others say it's OK in it's place. But everyone agrees that putting it in a header file is verboten.
So dear reader, who can explain this from Bjarne Stroustrup's own web site.
http://www.stroustrup.com/Programming/Graphics/std_lib_facilities.h
He didn't even put it at the top where you might notice it, its about 50 lines down.
What's going on here? Are mischievieous hackers out to discredit BS by putting bad code on his web-site?
Did you read the comment at the start of the file?
simple "Programming: Principles and Practice using C++" course header
to be used for the first few weeks. It provides the most common
standard headers (in the global namespace) and minimal exception/error
support.
Students: please don't try to understand the details of headers
just yet. All will be explained. This header is primarily used so that
you don't have to understand every concept all at once. Revised April
25, 2010: simple_error() added
The idea is so you can get started in the language without having to learn about namespaces day 1 nor worry about which standard headers need to be included for what.
Seeing as this is a course header, I think students are supposed to include it and then use most of the standard library that way. I am surprised Stroustrup teaches it that way (it is, in my opinion, still bad practice), but it does mean that he has one less bit of syntax to explain to his students. I don't think any non-coursework applications (or, even worse, libraries) are supposed to include it, so it's arguably somewhat acceptable.
I still think it's very poor style, and that saying that standard things have to be prefixed with std:: would have been better.
Firstly, that's teaching material and therefore far from the same. Secondly- so what? Everyone makes mistakes or maintains legacy headers. And thirdly, just because you invented a language doesn't make you the permanent master of everything- especially when there's a Standards committee.
I've often found myself wanting a way to undo the effect of a using statement or to include all of a namespace (such as std) but exclude a bit to be replaced (such as cout). For some reason this isn't possible. I am wondering if anyone knows why it was decided not to add this ability to the language? Is there some technical reason? I assume it wasn't just forgotten since it doesn't seem slated for C++0x either.
Just to clarify, I'm not looking for workarounds since Google can show me those. I'm looking for an explanation of why this is impossible, and why it was not considered (as far as I can tell) for inclusion in 0x.
A using directive brings a name or set of names into a given declarative scope.
You can't "un-using" for the same reason that you can't say
int x = 42;
// and later
[remove name x somehow]
There's no way to unintroduce names from a scope at all in C++, regardless where those names came from.
Given that it would overcomplicate name lookup (since names could be both added and removed from a scope), unless there is a really compelling use case, it's unlikely to be considered as a potential language feature.
This is because the using directive is not meant to be used for native C++ code. It was intended to help migrate C code to C++. In this context, "un-using" doesn't make sense.
-edit-
I should have been more specific. In this particular case, it looks like mstearn is using the using directive to include the std namespace globally. Doing this is generally a bad idea because it results in global namespace pollution, and should only be done in certain circumstances, like transitioning from another language to C++.
There are other situations where utilizing the using directive is fine (within a function, namespace composition). However "un-using" doesn't make sense in these situations either.
Mostly because there are workarounds that are sufficiently simple and straightforward that virtually nothing would be gained by including a "feature" for that specific purpose. Though I'm not sure he ever states it directly, I think you could argue that one of the guidelines in the design of C++ has always been to prefer general mechanisms to special-purpose ones, so using the existing scope system (for example) makes more sense than adding some special way to remove something from a scope after it's been introduced.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Many languages, such as Java, C#, do not separate declaration from implementation. C# has a concept of partial class, but implementation and declaration still remain in the same file.
Why doesn't C++ have the same model? Is it more practical to have header files?
I am referring to current and upcoming versions of C++ standard.
Backwards Compatibility - Header files are not eliminated because it would break Backwards Compatibility.
Header files allow for independent compilation. You don't need to access or even have the implementation files to compile a file. This can make for easier distributed builds.
This also allows SDKs to be done a little easier. You can provide just the headers and some libraries. There are, of course, ways around this which other languages use.
Even Bjarne Stroustrup has called header files a kludge.
But without a standard binary format which includes the necessary metadata (like Java class files, or .Net PE files) I don't see any way to implement the feature. A stripped ELF or a.out binary doesn't have much of the information you would need to extract. And I don't think that the information is ever stored in Windows XCOFF files.
I routinely flip between C# and C++, and the lack of header files in C# is one of my biggest pet peeves. I can look at a header file and learn all I need to know about a class - what it's member functions are called, their calling syntax, etc - without having to wade through pages of the code that implements the class.
And yes, I know about partial classes and #regions, but it's not the same. Partial classes actually make the problem worse, because a class definition is spread across several files. As far as #regions go, they never seem to be expanded in the manner I'd like for what I'm doing at the moment, so I have to spend time expanding those little plus's until I get the view right.
Perhaps if Visual Studio's intellisense worked better for C++, I wouldn't have a compelling reason to have to refer to .h files so often, but even in VS2008, C++'s intellisense can't touch C#'s
C was made to make writing a compiler easily. It does a LOT of stuff based on that one principle. Pointers only exist to make writing a compiler easier, as do header files. Many of the things carried over to C++ are based on compatibility with these features implemented to make compiler writing easier.
It's a good idea actually. When C was created, C and Unix were kind of a pair. C ported Unix, Unix ran C. In this way, C and Unix could quickly spread from platform to platform whereas an OS based on assembly had to be completely re-written to be ported.
The concept of specifying an interface in one file and the implementation in another isn't a bad idea at all, but that's not what C header files are. They are simply a way to limit the number of passes a compiler has to make through your source code and allow some limited abstraction of the contract between files so they can communicate.
These items, pointers, header files, etc... don't really offer any advantage over another system. By putting more effort into the compiler, you can compile a reference object as easily as a pointer to the exact same object code. This is what C++ does now.
C is a great, simple language. It had a very limited feature set, and you could write a compiler without much effort. Porting it is generally trivial! I'm not trying to say it's a bad language or anything, it's just that C's primary goals when it was created may leave remnants in the language that are more or less unnecessary now, but are going to be kept around for compatibility.
It seems like some people don't really believe that C was written to port Unix, so here: (from)
The first version of UNIX was written
in assembler language, but Thompson's
intention was that it would be written
in a high-level language.
Thompson first tried in 1971 to use
Fortran on the PDP-7, but gave up
after the first day. Then he wrote a
very simple language he called B,
which he got going on the PDP-7. It
worked, but there were problems.
First, because the implementation was
interpreted, it was always going to be
slow. Second, the basic notions of B,
which was based on the word-oriented
BCPL, just were not right for a
byte-oriented machine like the new
PDP-11.
Ritchie used the PDP-11 to add types
to B, which for a while was called NB
for "New B," and then he started to
write a compiler for it. "So that the
first phase of C was really these two
phases in short succession of, first,
some language changes from B, really,
adding the type structure without too
much change in the syntax; and doing
the compiler," Ritchie said.
"The second phase was slower," he said
of rewriting UNIX in C. Thompson
started in the summer of 1972 but had
two problems: figuring out how to run
the basic co-routines, that is, how to
switch control from one process to
another; and the difficulty in getting
the proper data structure, since the
original version of C did not have
structures.
"The combination of the things caused
Ken to give up over the summer,"
Ritchie said. "Over the year, I added
structures and probably made the
compiler code somewhat better --
better code -- and so over the next
summer, that was when we made the
concerted effort and actually did redo
the whole operating system in C."
Here is a perfect example of what I mean. From the comments:
Pointers only exist to make writing a compiler easier? No. Pointers exist because they're the simplest possible abstraction over the idea of indirection. – Adam Rosenfield (an hour ago)
You are right. In order to implement indirection, pointers are the simplest possible abstraction to implement. In no way are they the simplest possible to comprehend or use. Arrays are much easier.
The problem? To implement arrays as efficiently as pointers you have to pretty much add a HUGE pile of code to your compiler.
There is no reason they couldn't have designed C without pointers, but with code like this:
int i=0;
while(src[++i])
dest[i]=src[i];
it will take a lot of effort (on the compilers part) to factor out the explicit i+src and i+dest additions and make it create the same code that this would make:
while(*(dest++) = *(src++))
;
Factoring out that variable "i" after the fact is HARD. New compilers can do it, but back then it just wasn't possible, and the OS running on that crappy hardware needed little optimizations like that.
Now few systems need that kind of optimization (I work on one of the slowest platforms around--cable set-top boxes, and most of our stuff is in Java) and in the rare case where you might need it, the new C compilers should be smart enough to make that kind of conversion on its own.
In The Design and Evolution of C++, Stroustrup gives out one more reason...
The same header file can have two or more implementation files which can be simultaneously worked-upon by more than one programmer without the need of a source-control system.
This might seem odd these days, but I guess it was an important issue when C++ was invented.
If you want C++ without header files then I have good news for you.
It already exists and is called D (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html)
Technically D seems to be a lot nicer than C++ but it is just not mainstream enough for use in many applications at the moment.
One of C++'s goals is to be a superset of C, and it's difficult for it to do so if it cannot support header files. And, by extension, if you wish to excise header files you may as well consider excising CPP (the pre-processor, not plus-plus) altogether; both C# and Java do not specify macro pre-processors with their standards (but it should be noted in some cases they can be and even are used even with these languages).
As C++ is designed right now, you need prototypes -- just as in C -- to statically check any compiled code that references external functions and classes. Without header files, you would have to type out these class definitions and function declarations prior to using them. For C++ not to use header files, you'd have to add a feature in the language that would support something like Java's import keyword. That'd be a major addition, and change; to answer your question of if it'd be practical: I don't think so--not at all.
Many people are aware of shortcomings of header files and there are ideas to introduce more powerful module system to C++.
You might want to take a look at Modules in C++ (Revision 5) by Daveed Vandevoorde.
Well, C++ per se shouldn't eliminate header files because of backwards compatibility. However, I do think they're a silly idea in general. If you want to distribute a closed-source lib, this information can be extracted automatically. If you want to understand how to use a class w/o looking at the implementation, that's what documentation generators are for, and they do a heck of a lot better a job.
There is value in defining the class interface in a separate component to the implementation file.
It can be done with interfaces, but if you go down that road, then you are implicitly saying that classes are deficient in terms of separating implementation from contract.
Modula 2 had the right idea, definition modules and implementation modules. http://www.modula2.org/reference/modules.php
Java/C#'s answer is an implicit implementation of the same (albeit object-oriented.)
Header files are a kludge, because header files express implementation detail (such as private variables.)
In moving over to Java and C#, I find that if a language requires IDE support for development (such that public class interfaces are navigable in class browsers), then this is maybe a statement that the code doesn't stand on its own merits as being particularly readable.
I find the mix of interface with implementation detail quite horrendous.
Crucially, the lack of ability to document the public class signature in a concise well-commented file independent of implementation indicates to me that the language design is written for convenience of authorship, rather convenience of maintenance. Well I'm rambling about Java and C# now.
One advantage of this separation is that it is easy to view only the interface, without requiring an advanced editor.
No language exists without header files. It's a myth.
Look at any proprietary library distribution for Java (I have no C# experience to speak of, but I'd expect it's the same). They don't give you the complete source file; they just give you a file with every method's implementation blanked ({} or {return null;} or the like) and everything they can get away with hiding hidden. You can't call that anything but a header.
There is no technical reason, however, why a C or C++ compiler could count everything in an appropriately-marked file as extern unless that file is being compiled directly. However, the costs for compilation would be immense because neither C nor C++ is fast to parse, and that's a very important consideration. Any more complex method of melding headers and source would quickly encounter technical issues like the need for the compiler to know an object's layout.
If you want the reason why this will never happen: it would break pretty much all existing C++ software. If you look at some of the C++ committee design documentation, they looked at various alternatives to see how much code it would break.
It would be far easier to change the switch statement into something halfway intelligent. That would break only a little code. It's still not going to happen.
EDITED FOR NEW IDEA:
The difference between C++ and Java that makes C++ header files necessary is that C++ objects are not necessarily pointers. In Java, all class instances are referred to by pointer, although it doesn't look that way. C++ has objects allocated on the heap and the stack. This means C++ needs a way of knowing how big an object will be, and where the data members are in memory.
Header files are an integral part of the language. Without header files, all static libraries, dynamic libraries, pretty much any pre-compiled library becomes useless. Header files also make it easier to document everything, and make it possible to look over a library/file's API without going over every single bit of code.
They also make it easier to organize your program. Yes, you have to be constantly switching from source to header, but they also allow you define internal and private APIs inside the implementations. For example:
MySource.h:
extern int my_library_entry_point(int api_to_use, ...);
MySource.c:
int private_function_that_CANNOT_be_public();
int my_library_entry_point(int api_to_use, ...){
// [...] Do stuff
}
int private_function_that_CANNOT_be_public() {
}
If you #include <MySource.h>, then you get my_library_entry_point.
If you #include <MySource.c>, then you also get private_function_that_CANNOT_be_public.
You see how that could be a very bad thing if you had a function to get a list of passwords, or a function which implemented your encryption algorithm, or a function that would expose the internals of an OS, or a function that overrode privileges, etc.
Oh Yes!
After coding in Java and C# it's really annoying to have 2 files for every classes. So I was thinking how can I merge them without breaking existing code.
In fact, it's really easy. Just put the definition (implementation) inside an #ifdef section and add a define on the compiler command line to compile that file. That's it.
Here is an example:
/* File ClassA.cpp */
#ifndef _ClassA_
#define _ClassA_
#include "ClassB.cpp"
#include "InterfaceC.cpp"
class ClassA : public InterfaceC
{
public:
ClassA(void);
virtual ~ClassA(void);
virtual void methodC();
private:
ClassB b;
};
#endif
#ifdef compiling_ClassA
ClassA::ClassA(void)
{
}
ClassA::~ClassA(void)
{
}
void ClassA::methodC()
{
}
#endif
On the command line, compile that file with
-D compiling_ClassA
The other files that need to include ClassA can just do
#include "ClassA.cpp"
Of course the addition of the define on the command line can easily be added with a macro expansion (Visual Studio compiler) or with an automatic variables (gnu make) and using the same nomenclature for the define name.
Still I don't get the point of some statements. Separation of API and implementation is a very good thing, but header files are not API. There are private fields there. If you add or remove private field you change implementation and not API.