id.cpp
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
public:
static int a;
};
int A::a=20;
class b
{
public:
b()
{
cout<<A::a<<endl;
}
};
int main()
{
b *b1 = new b();
return 0;
}
id1.cpp
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class c
{
public:
int get()
{
cout<<A::a<<endl;
}
};
int main()
{
c c1;
c1.get();
return 0;
}
This is the way they have declared and got the output in one program but when I'm trying it I'm getting errors as the class is not a namespace or the program id is not included in the id1 file... How to get the variable that is stored in one file into the other file without using namespace and including the header file is there any option for it?
Two separate programs as shown (they're separate because they both define main()) cannot share variables in any simple way.
If the two separate files were to be integrated into a single program, so one of the main() programs was replaced, then you would fall back on the standard techniques of declaring the variable A::a in a header and using that header in both modules. The header would also define class A. This is the only sane way to do it.
You could write the definition of the class twice, once in each file, and declare the variable as an extern in one file and define it in the other, but that is not particularly sensible even in this simple case and rapidly degenerates into unmaintainable disaster if the code gets any more complex and there are more shared variables.
Of course, you might want to consider not using a global variable at all, but provide instead an accessor function. However, you still end up with a header declaring the services provided by the class A and the code implementing those services, and the code consuming those services.
Related
I am developing a project in which I have a vendor library, say vendor.h, for the specific Arduino-compatible board I'm using which defines class HTTPClient that conflicts with an Arduino system library, HTTPClient.h, which also defines class HTTPClient.
These two classes are unrelated other than having the same name, and the vendor implementation of an HTTP client is far less capable than the Arduino system library's implementation, so I'd prefer to use the latter. But I can't omit including the former, because I need quite a bit from the vendor.h. Essentially, I have the problem posed here, but with classes rather than functions. I have the full code of both, but given that one is a system library and the other is a vendor library, I'm reluctant to fork and edit either, as that adds lots of merging work down the road if either of them are updated, so my preference would be to find a tidy solution that doesn't edit either header.
I've tried a variety of solutions posted in other SO questions:
I do not want to leave out either header, as I need vendor.h for quite a few things and need the capabilities of HTTPClient.h's client implementation
Proper namespaces in the headers would solve the problem, I would prefer to avoid editing either header
I tried wrapping the #include <HTTPClient.h> in a namespace in my main.cpp, but that caused linking errors, as it's not a header-only library, so the header & cpp weren't in the same namespace
I tried a simple wrapper as proposed for the function in the above linked SO question in which the header contained just a forward declaration of my wrapper class & the associated cpp contained the actual class definition. This gave a compiler error of error: aggregate 'HTTP::Client client' has incomplete type and cannot be defined (Code sample of this attempt below)
main.cpp:
#include <vendor.h>
#include "httpclientwrapper.h"
HTTP::Client client;
httpclientwrapper.h:
#ifndef INC_HTTPCLIENTWRAPPER_H
#define INC_HTTPCLIENTWRAPPER_H
namespace HTTP {
class Client;
}
#endif
httpclientwrapper.cpp:
#include "httpclientwrapper.h"
#include <HTTPClient.h>
namespace HTTP {
class Client : public ::HTTPClient {};
}
In that example, I can't inherit from HTTPClient in a class definition in my header, as that will reintroduce the duplicate class name to the global namespace in my main program (hence the perhaps misguided attempt to see if a forward declaration would do the trick). I suspect that I can resolve the issue by completely duplicating the class definition of HTTPClient in my wrapper class above rather than trying to use inheritance. I would then add member definitions to my wrapper cpp which pass the call to HTTPClient's members. Before I go through the trouble of rewriting (or more likely, copy/pasting) the entire HTTPClient definition from HTTPClient.h into my own wrapper, I was wondering if there was a better or more proper way to resolve the conflict?
Thanks for you help!
As a solution was never proposed, I'm posting an answer that summarizes my research and my ultimate resolution. Mostly, I encourage the use of namespaces, because proper uses of namespaces would have eliminated the conflict. However, Arduino environments try to keep things simple to lower the barrier of entry, eschewing "complicated" features of C++, so more advanced use cases will likely continue to run into issues like this. From other SO answers and forum posts (cited where I could), here are some methods for avoiding name conflicts like this:
If you can edit the source
Edit the source code to remove the conflict or add a namespace to one of both libraries. If this is an open source library, submit a pull request. This is the cleanest solution. However, if you can't push your changes back upstream (such as when one is a system library for some hardware), you may end up with merge issues down the road when the maintainer/developer updates the libraries.
If you can't edit the source
Credit for part of this: How to avoid variable/function conflicts from two libraries in C++
For libraries that are header only libraries (or all functions are inline)
(ie, they have only a .h file without a .o or .cpp)
Include the library inside a namespace. In most code, this is frowned upon as poor form, but if you're already in a situation where you are trying to cope with a library that doesn't contain itself nicely, it's a clean and simple way to contain the code in a namespace and avoid name conflicts.
main.cpp
namespace foo {
#include library.h
}
int main() {
foo::bar(1);
}
For libraries with functions
The above method will fail to link at compile time, because the declarations in the header will be inside the namespace, but the definitions of those functions are not.
Instead, create a wrapper header and implementation file. In the header, declare your namespace and functions you wish to use, but do not import the original library. In the implementation file, import your library, and use the functions inside your new namespaced functions. That way, the one conflicting library is not imported into the same place as the other.
wrapper.h
namespace foo {
int bar(int a);
}
wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "library.h"
namespace foo {
int bar(int a) {
return ::bar(a);
}
}
main.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
int main() {
foo::bar(1);
}
You could also, for the sake of consistency, wrap both libraries so they're each in their own namespace. This method does mean that you will have to put in the effort to write a wrapper for every function you plan to use. This gets more complicated, however, when you need to use classes from the library (see below).
For libraries with classes
This is an extension of the wrapper function model from above, but you will need to put in more work, and there are a few more drawbacks. You can't write a class that inherits from the library's class, as that would require importing the original library in your wrapper header prior to defining your class, so you must write a complete wrapper class. You also cannot have a private member of your class of the type from the original class that you can delegate calls to for the same reason. The attempt at using a forward declaration I described in my question also did not work, as the header file needs a complete declaration of the class to compile. This left me the below implementation, which only works in the cases of a singleton (which was my use case anyway).
The wrapper header file should almost completely duplicate the public interface of the class you want to use.
wrapper.h
namespace foo {
Class Bar() {
public:
void f(int a);
bool g(char* b, int c, bool d);
char* h();
};
}
The wrapper implementation file then creates an instance and passes the calls along.
wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "library.h"
namespace foo {
::Bar obj;
void Bar::f(int a) {
return obj.f(a);
}
bool Bar::g(char* b, int c, bool d) {
return obj.g(b, c, d);
}
char* Bar::h() {
return obj.h();
}
}
The main file will interact with only a single instance of the original class, no matter how many times your wrapper class in instantiated.
main.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
int main() {
foo::Bar obj;
obj.f(1);
obj.g("hello",5,true);
obj.h();
}
Overall, this strikes me as a flawed solution. To fully wrap this class, I think the this could be modified to add a factory class that would be fully contained inside the wrapper implementation file. This class would instantiate the original library class every time your wrapper class is instantiated, and then track these instances. In this way, your wrapper class could keep an index to its associated instance in the factory and bypass the need to have that instance as its own private member. This seemed like a significant amount of work, and I did not attempt to do so, but would look something like the code below. (This probably needs some polish and a real look at its memory usage!)
The wrapper header file adds a constructor & private member to store an instance id
wrapper.h
namespace foo {
Class Bar() {
public:
Bar();
void f(int a);
bool g(char* b, int c, bool d);
char* h();
private:
unsigned int instance;
};
}
The wrapper implementation file then adds a factory class to manage instances of the original library's class
wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "library.h"
namespace foo {
class BarFactory {
public:
static unsigned int new() {
instances[count] = new ::Bar();
return count++;
}
static ::Bar* get(unsigned int i) {
return instances[i];
}
private:
BarFactory();
::Bar* instances[MAX_COUNT]
int count;
};
void Bar::Bar() {
instance = BarFactory.new();
}
void Bar::f(int a) {
return BarFactory.get(i)->f(a);
}
bool Bar::g(char* b, int c, bool d) {
return BarFactory.get(i)->g(b, c, d);
}
char* Bar::h() {
return BarFactory.get(i)->h();
}
}
The main file remains unchanged
main.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
int main() {
foo::bar obj;
obj.f(1);
obj.g("hello",5,true);
obj.h();
}
If all of this seems like a lot of work, then you're thinking the same thing I did. I implemented the basic class wrapper, and realized it wasn't going to work for my use case. And given the hardware limitations of the Arduino, I ultimately decided that rather than add more code to be able to use the HTTPClient implementation in either library, I wrote my own HTTP implementation library in the end, and so used none of the above and saved several hundred kilobytes of memory. But I wanted to share here in case somebody else was looking to answer the same question!
I'm aware of using function prototypes, and I was under the impression that forward class declarations could serve a similar purpose when main() and a class are in the same file. For example, I would have expected this would compile:
// main.cpp
#include <iostream>
// class prototypes
class MyClass;
int main(void)
{
MyClass myClass;
// do stuff with myClass here
return(0);
}
class MyClass
{
public:
int someInt;
double someDouble;
// more stuff here . . .
};
But on the MyClass myClass; line I'm getting the error 'myClass' uses undefined class 'MyClass'. What am I doing wrong?
P.S. I'm aware that I could cut/paste main() below all the classes it uses and that would fix the error, but I'd prefer to keep main() as the first function or class.
P.P.S. I'm aware that in any substantial size production program main(), .h content, and .cpp content would be in 3 separate files. In this case I'm attempting to write a small example or test program where main and a class(es) are in the same file.
Forward declarations can only be used via pointers or references.
Calling a constructor function doesn't fall into this category.
I'm aware that I could cut/paste main() below all the classes it uses and that would fix the error, but I'd prefer to keep main() as the first function or class.
That's why usually header files are used, instead of placing all the declarations and definitions in the main.cpp file.
I'm aware that in any substantial size production program main(), .h content, and .cpp content would be in 3 separate files. In this case I'm attempting to write a small example or test program where main and a class(es) are in the same file.
You should still stick to that idiom though, everything else would probably end up in a mess.
This doesn't use forward declarations but it partially addresses the spirit of a single main.cpp with your "main" at the top. I find this technique sometimes useful when you want to share something via an online C++ ide where a single file is much easier to deal with, and you want to focus on the action in main rather than implementation detail in helper structs/classes etc.
#include <iostream>
template<typename MyClass,typename MyOtherClass>
int main_()
{
MyClass a;
a.do_foo();
MyOtherClass b;
b.do_bar();
return 0;
}
struct MyClass
{
void do_foo() { std::cout << "MyClass: do_foo called\n"; }
};
struct MyOtherClass
{
void do_bar() { std::cout << "MyOtherClass: do_bar called\n"; }
};
int main()
{
return main_<MyClass,MyOtherClass>();
}
I'm comparatively new to C++ so I tested some things out in Xcode, and found a really weird thing.
This is my 'Testing.h' file
#ifndef Testing_h
#define Testing_h
class Testing{
private:
int a;
public:
Testing(int a=3);
void hey(int b);
};
#endif
This is my 'Testing.cpp' file
#include "Testing.h"
Testing::Testing(int a){
a = 4;
}
And finally, this is the 'main.cpp' file
#include <iostream>
#include "Testing.h"
using namespace std;
int main(){
Testing a;
//Apparently not completing the definitions of every abstract methods in the class is not a problem
}
I only declared 'void hey(int b)' in 'Testing.h' but have not defined it in 'Testing.cpp'. So I was wondering how it is possible for the compiler to successfully compile the 'main.cpp' without having enough information of 'void hey(int b)'. Thanks in advance!
Because you never require there to be a definition for hey().
You can require a definition by calling it, for example :
a.hey(42);
And you'll see that the linker isn't too happy because hey is an undefined reference.
Testing a;//Apparently not completing the definitions of every abstract methods in the class is not a problem
You defined constructor with default value a=3 but calling both constructor argument and class parameter the same name is bad practice.
Instead you can write this:
//Testing.h
#ifndef Testing_h
#define Testing_h
using namespace std;
class Testing{
private:
int number;
public:
Testing(int a=3): number(a = 4){}//it's the same as your implementation in cpp file
void hey(int b);
int getNumber() {return number;}
};
#endif
//main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "Testing.h"
int main()
{
Testing object;
cout<<object.getNumber();// returns 4
return 0;
}
And why hey compiles?
During building your project compiler translates your source code into object code by verifying the syntax. After that process linker checks the definitions marked by whole phrases. Source code is compiled from each file provided. Linker doesn't care for the implementation presence, it only looks it up if a method is used by the program. So even without implementation of hey your program compiles.
Last remark
It's discouraged to include .cpp files use headers instead. Sometimes you can get yourself into multiple definitions of the same functions causing compiler errors.
If I have some code like
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
...
#include "Class1.H"
#include "Class2.H"
...
}
Generally the main() method is the starting point of every application and the content within main() is to be executed. Am I right in the assumption that the content of all classes included into main() will be executed when main() is started?
greetings
Streight
No, no, NO.
First of all, you don't #include a file within a function. You #include a file at the beginning of a file, before other declarations. OK, you can use #include anywhere, but you really just shouldn't.
Second, #include doesn't execute anything. It's basically just a copy-paste operation. The contents of the #included file are (effectively) inserted exactly where you put the #include.
Third, if you're going to learn to program in C++, please consider picking up one of our recommended texts.
You commented:
I am working with the multiphaseEulerFoam Solver in OpenFoam and
inside the main() of multiphaseEulerFoam.C are classes included. I
assume that the classes have the right structure to be called in
main()
That may be the case, and I don't doubt that the classes have the right structure to be called from main. The problem is main will be malformed after the #includes because you'll have local class definitions and who knows what else within main.
Consider this. If you have a header:
foo.h
#ifndef FOO_H
#define FOO_H
class Foo
{
public:
Foo (const std::string& val)
:
mVal (val)
{
}
private:
std::string mVal;
};
#endif
And you try to include this in main:
main.cpp
int main()
{
#include "foo.h"
}
After preprocessing the #include directive, the resulting file that the compiler will try to compile will look like this:
preprocessed main.cpp
int main()
{
#ifndef FOO_H
#define FOO_H
class Foo
{
public:
Foo (const std::string& val)
:
mVal (val)
{
}
private:
std::string mVal;
};
#endif
}
This is all kinds of wrong. One, you can't declare local classes like this. Two, Foo won't be "executed", as you seem to assume.
main.cpp should look like this instead:
#include "foo.h"
int main()
{
}
#define and #include are just textual operations that take place during the 'preprocessing' phase of compilation, which is technically an optional phase. So you can mix and match them in all sorts of ways and as long as your preprocessor syntax is correct it will work.
However if you do redefine macros with #undef your code will be hard to follow because the same text could have different meanings in different places in the code.
For custom types typedef is much preferred where possible because you can still benefit from the type checking mechanism of the compiler and it is less error-prone because it is much less likely than #define macros to have unexpected side-effects on surrounding code.
Jim Blacklers Answer # #include inside the main () function
Try to avoid code like this. #include directive inserts contents of the file in its place.
You can simulate the result of your code by copy-pasting file content from Class1.H and Class2.H inside the main function.
Includes do not belong into any function or class method body, this is not a good idea to do.
No code will be executed unless you instantiate one of your classes in your header files.
Code is executed when:
Class is instantiated, then it's constructor method is called and the code inside the method is executed.
If there are variables of a class type inside your instantiated class, they will too run their constructors.
When you call a class method.
Try this example:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
class A
{ public:
A() { cout << "A constructor called" << endl; }
};
// A has no instances
class B
{ public:
B() { cout << "B constructor called" << endl; }
void test() { cout << "B test called" << endl; }
} bbb;
// bbb will be new class instance of B
bbb.test(); // example call of test method of bbb instance
B ccc; // another class instance of B
ccc.test(); // another call, this time of ccc instance
}
When you run it, you'll observe that:
there will be no instance of class A created. Nothing will be run from class A.
if you intantiate bbb and ccc, their constructors will be run. To run any other code you must first make a method, for example test and then call it.
This is an openFoam syntax he is correct in saying that open Foam treats #include like calling a function. In OpenFoam using #include Foo.H would run through the code not the class declaration that is done in a different hierarchy level. I would recommend all openFoam related question not be asked in a C++ forum because there is so much stuff built onto C++ in openFoam a lot the rules need to be broken to produce a working code.
You're only including declarations of classes. To execute their code, you need to create class instances (objects).
Also, you shouldn't write #include inside a function or a class method. More often than not it won't compile.
Is there any difference between wrapping both header and cpp file contents in a namespace or wrapping just the header contents and then doing using namespace in the cpp file?
By difference I mean any sort performance penalty or slightly different semantics that can cause problems or anything I need to be aware of.
Example:
// header
namespace X
{
class Foo
{
public:
void TheFunc();
};
}
// cpp
namespace X
{
void Foo::TheFunc()
{
return;
}
}
VS
// header
namespace X
{
class Foo
{
public:
void TheFunc();
};
}
// cpp
using namespace X;
{
void Foo::TheFunc()
{
return;
}
}
If there is no difference what is the preferred form and why?
The difference in "namespace X" to "using namespace X" is in the first one any new declarations will be under the name space while in the second one it won't.
In your example there are no new declaration - so no difference hence no preferred way.
Namespace is just a way to mangle function signature so that they will not conflict. Some prefer the first way and other prefer the second version. Both versions do not have any effect on compile time performance. Note that namespaces are just a compile time entity.
The only problem that arises with using namespace is when we have same nested namespace names (i.e) X::X::Foo. Doing that creates more confusion with or without using keyword.
There's no performance penalties, since the resulting could would be the same, but putting your Foo into namespace implicitly introduces ambiguity in case you have Foos in different namespaces. You can get your code fubar, indeed. I'd recommend avoiding using using for this purpose.
And you have a stray { after using namespace ;-)
If you're attempting to use variables from one to the other, then I'd recommend externalizing them, then initializing them in the source file like so:
// [.hh]
namespace example
{
extern int a, b, c;
}
// [.cc]
// Include your header, then init the vars:
namespace example
{
int a, b, c;
}
// Then in the function below, you can init them as what you want:
void reference
{
example::a = 0;
}
If the second one compiles as well, there should be no differences. Namespaces are processed in compile-time and should not affect the runtime actions.
But for design issues, second is horrible. Even if it compiles (not sure), it makes no sense at all.
The Foo::TheFunc() is not in the correct namespacein the VS-case. Use 'void X::Foo::TheFunc() {}' to implement the function in the correct namespace (X).
In case if you do wrap only the .h content you have to write using namespace ... in cpp file otherwise you every time working on the valid namespace. Normally you wrap both .cpp and .h files otherwise you are in risk to use objects from another namespace which may generate a lot of problems.
I think right thing to do here is to use namespace for scoping.
namespace catagory
{
enum status
{
none,
active,
paused
}
};
void func()
{
catagory::status status;
status = category::active;
}
Or you can do the following:
// asdf.h
namespace X
{
class Foo
{
public:
void TheFunc();
};
}
Then
// asdf.cpp
#include "asdf.h"
void X::Foo::TheFunc()
{
return;
}