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.
I want to write a library that to use, you only need to include one header file. However, if you have multiple source files and include the header in both, you'll get multiple definition errors, because the library is both declared and defined in the header. I have seen header-only libraries, in Boost I think. How did they do that?
Declare your functions inline, and put them in a namespace so you don't collide:
namespace fancy_schmancy
{
inline void my_fn()
{
// magic happens
}
};
The main reason why Boost is largely header-only is because it's heavily template oriented. Templates generally get a pass from the one definition rule. In fact to effectively use templates, you must have the definition visible in any translation unit that uses the template.
Another way around the one definition rule (ODR) is to use inline functions. Actually, getting a free-pass from the ODR is what inline really does - the fact that it might inline the function is really more of an optional side-effect.
A final option (but probably not as good) is to make your functions static. This may lead to code bloat if the linker isn't able to figure out that all those function instances are really the same. But I mention it for completeness. Note that compilers will often inline static functions even if they aren't marked as inline.
Boost uses header-only libraries a lot because like the STL, it's mostly built using class and function templates, which are almost always header-only.
If you are not writing templates I would avoid including code in your header files - it's more trouble than it's worth. Make this a plain old static library.
There are many truly header-only Boost libraries, but they tend to be very simple (and/or only templates). The bigger libraries accomplish the same effect through some trickery: they have "automatic linking" (you'll see this term used here). They essentially have a bunch of preprocessor directives in the headers that figure out the appropriate lib file for your platform and use a #pragma to instruct the linker to link it in. So you don't have to explicitly link it, but it is still being linked.
Is there ever such a pattern of dependancies that it is impossible to keep everything in header files only? What if we enforced a rule of one class per header only?
For the purposes of this question, let's ignore static things :)
I am aware of no features in standard C++, excepting statics which you have already mentioned, which require a library to define a full translation unit (instead of only headers). However, it's not recommended to do that, because when you do, you force all your clients to recompile their entire codebase whenever your library changes. If you're using source files or a static library or a dynamic library form of distribution, your library can be changed/updated/modified without forcing everyone to recompile.
It is possible, I would say, at the express condition of not using a number of language features: as you noticed, a few uses of the static keyword.
It may require a few trick, but they can be reviewed.
You'll need to keep the header / source distinction whenever you need to break a dependency cycle, even though the two files will be header files in practice.
Free-functions (non-template) have to be declared inline, the compiler may not inline them, but if they are declared so it won't complained that they have been redefined when the client builts its library / executable.
Globally shared data (global variables and class static attributes) should be emulated using local static attribute in functions / class methods. In practice it matters little as far as the caller is concerned (just adds ()). Note that in C++0x this becomes the favored way because it's guaranteed to be thread-safe while still protecting from the initialization order fiasco, until then... it's not thread-safe ;)
Respecting those 3 points, I believe you would be able to write a fully-fledged header-only library (anyone sees something else I missed ?)
A number of Boost Libraries have used similar tricks to be header-only even though their code was not completely template. For example Asio does very consciously and proposes the alternative using flags (see release notes for Asio 1.4.6):
clients who only need a couple features need not worry about building / linking, they just grab what they need
clients who rely on it a bit more or want to cut down on compilation time are offered the ability to build their own Asio library (with their own sets of flags) and then include "lightweight" headers
This way (at the price of some more effort on the part of the library devs) the clients get their cake and eat it too. It's a pretty nice solution I think.
Note: I am wondering whether static functions could be inlined, I prefer to use anonymous namespaces myself so never really looked into it...
The one class per header rule is meaningless. If this doesn't work:
#include <header1>
#include <header2>
then some variation of this will:
#include <header1a>
#include <header2>
#include <header1b>
This might result in less than one class per header, but you can always use (void*) and casts and inline functions (in which case the 'inline' will likely be duly ignored by the compiler). So the question, seems to me, can be reduced to:
class A
{
// ...
void *pimpl;
}
Is it possible that the private implementation, pimpl, depends on the declaration of A? If so then pimpl.cpp (as a header) must both precede and follow A.h. But Since you can always, once again, use (void*) and casts and inline functions in preceding headers, it can be done.
Of course, I could be wrong. In either case: Ick.
In my long career, I haven't come across dependency pattern that would disallow header-only implementation.
Mind you that if you have circular dependencies between classes, you may need to resort to either abstract interface - concrete implementation paradigm, or use templates (using templates allows you to forward-reference properties/methods of template parameters, which are resolved later during instantiation).
This does not mean that you SHOULD always aim for header-only libraries. Good as they are, they should be reserved to template and inline code. They SHOULD NOT include substantial complex calculations.
My personal style with C++ has always to put class declarations in an include file, and definitions in a .cpp file, very much like stipulated in Loki's answer to C++ Header Files, Code Separation. Admittedly, part of the reason I like this style probably has to do with all the years I spent coding Modula-2 and Ada, both of which have a similar scheme with specification files and body files.
I have a coworker, much more knowledgeable in C++ than I, who is insisting that all C++ declarations should, where possible, include the definitions right there in the header file. He's not saying this is a valid alternate style, or even a slightly better style, but rather this is the new universally-accepted style that everyone is now using for C++.
I'm not as limber as I used to be, so I'm not really anxious to scrabble up onto this bandwagon of his until I see a few more people up there with him. So how common is this idiom really?
Just to give some structure to the answers: Is it now The Way™, very common, somewhat common, uncommon, or bug-out crazy?
Your coworker is wrong, the common way is and always has been to put code in .cpp files (or whatever extension you like) and declarations in headers.
There is occasionally some merit to putting code in the header, this can allow more clever inlining by the compiler. But at the same time, it can destroy your compile times since all code has to be processed every time it is included by the compiler.
Finally, it is often annoying to have circular object relationships (sometimes desired) when all the code is the headers.
Bottom line, you were right, he is wrong.
EDIT: I have been thinking about your question. There is one case where what he says is true. templates. Many newer "modern" libraries such as boost make heavy use of templates and often are "header only." However, this should only be done when dealing with templates as it is the only way to do it when dealing with them.
EDIT: Some people would like a little more clarification, here's some thoughts on the downsides to writing "header only" code:
If you search around, you will see quite a lot of people trying to find a way to reduce compile times when dealing with boost. For example: How to reduce compilation times with Boost Asio, which is seeing a 14s compile of a single 1K file with boost included. 14s may not seem to be "exploding", but it is certainly a lot longer than typical and can add up quite quickly when dealing with a large project. Header only libraries do affect compile times in a quite measurable way. We just tolerate it because boost is so useful.
Additionally, there are many things which cannot be done in headers only (even boost has libraries you need to link to for certain parts such as threads, filesystem, etc). A Primary example is that you cannot have simple global objects in header only libs (unless you resort to the abomination that is a singleton) as you will run into multiple definition errors. NOTE: C++17's inline variables will make this particular example doable in the future.
As a final point, when using boost as an example of header only code, a huge detail often gets missed.
Boost is library, not user level code. so it doesn't change that often. In user code, if you put everything in headers, every little change will cause you to have to recompile the entire project. That's a monumental waste of time (and is not the case for libraries that don't change from compile to compile). When you split things between header/source and better yet, use forward declarations to reduce includes, you can save hours of recompiling when added up across a day.
The day C++ coders agree on The Way, lambs will lie down with lions, Palestinians will embrace Israelis, and cats and dogs will be allowed to marry.
The separation between .h and .cpp files is mostly arbitrary at this point, a vestige of compiler optimizations long past. To my eye, declarations belong in the header and definitions belong in the implementation file. But, that's just habit, not religion.
Code in headers is generally a bad idea since it forces recompilation of all files that includes the header when you change the actual code rather than the declarations. It will also slow down compilation since you'll need to parse the code in every file that includes the header.
A reason to have code in header files is that it's generally needed for the keyword inline to work properly and when using templates that's being instanced in other cpp files.
What might be informing you coworker is a notion that most C++ code should be templated to allow for maximum usability. And if it's templated, then everything will need to be in a header file, so that client code can see it and instantiate it. If it's good enough for Boost and the STL, it's good enough for us.
I don't agree with this point of view, but it may be where it's coming from.
I think your co-worker is smart and you are also correct.
The useful things I found that putting everything into the headers is that:
No need for writing & sync headers and sources.
The structure is plain and no circular dependencies force the coder to make a "better" structure.
Portable, easy to embedded to a new project.
I do agree with the compiling time problem, but I think we should notice that:
The change of source file are very likely to change the header files which leads to the whole project be recompiled again.
Compiling speed is much faster than before. And if you have a project to be built with a long time and high frequency, it may indicates that your project design has flaws. Seperate the tasks into different projects and module can avoid this problem.
Lastly I just wanna support your co-worker, just in my personal view.
Often I'll put trivial member functions into the header file, to allow them to be inlined. But to put the entire body of code there, just to be consistent with templates? That's plain nuts.
Remember: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
As Tuomas said, your header should be minimal. To be complete I will expand a bit.
I personally use 4 types of files in my C++ projects:
Public:
Forwarding header: in case of templates etc, this file get the forwarding declarations that will appear in the header.
Header: this file includes the forwarding header, if any, and declare everything that I wish to be public (and defines the classes...)
Private:
Private header: this file is a header reserved for implementation, it includes the header and declares the helper functions / structures (for Pimpl for example or predicates). Skip if unnecessary.
Source file: it includes the private header (or header if no private header) and defines everything (non-template...)
Furthermore, I couple this with another rule: Do not define what you can forward declare. Though of course I am reasonable there (using Pimpl everywhere is quite a hassle).
It means that I prefer a forward declaration over an #include directive in my headers whenever I can get away with them.
Finally, I also use a visibility rule: I limit the scopes of my symbols as much as possible so that they do not pollute the outer scopes.
Putting it altogether:
// example_fwd.hpp
// Here necessary to forward declare the template class,
// you don't want people to declare them in case you wish to add
// another template symbol (with a default) later on
class MyClass;
template <class T> class MyClassT;
// example.hpp
#include "project/example_fwd.hpp"
// Those can't really be skipped
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include "project/pimpl.hpp"
// Those can be forward declared easily
#include "project/foo_fwd.hpp"
namespace project { class Bar; }
namespace project
{
class MyClass
{
public:
struct Color // Limiting scope of enum
{
enum type { Red, Orange, Green };
};
typedef Color::type Color_t;
public:
MyClass(); // because of pimpl, I need to define the constructor
private:
struct Impl;
pimpl<Impl> mImpl; // I won't describe pimpl here :p
};
template <class T> class MyClassT: public MyClass {};
} // namespace project
// example_impl.hpp (not visible to clients)
#include "project/example.hpp"
#include "project/bar.hpp"
template <class T> void check(MyClass<T> const& c) { }
// example.cpp
#include "example_impl.hpp"
// MyClass definition
The lifesaver here is that most of the times the forward header is useless: only necessary in case of typedef or template and so is the implementation header ;)
To add more fun you can add .ipp files which contain the template implementation (that is being included in .hpp), while .hpp contains the interface.
As apart from templatized code (depending on the project this can be majority or minority of files) there is normal code and here it is better to separate the declarations and definitions. Provide also forward-declarations where needed - this may have effect on the compilation time.
Generally, when writing a new class, I will put all the code in the class, so I don't have to look in another file for it.. After everything is working, I break the body of the methods out into the cpp file, leaving the prototypes in the hpp file.
I personally do this in my header files:
// class-declaration
// inline-method-declarations
I don't like mixing the code for the methods in with the class as I find it a pain to look things up quickly.
I would not put ALL of the methods in the header file. The compiler will (normally) not be able to inline virtual methods and will (likely) only inline small methods without loops (totally depends on the compiler).
Doing the methods in the class is valid... but from a readablilty point of view I don't like it. Putting the methods in the header does mean that, when possible, they will get inlined.
I think that it's absolutely absurd to put ALL of your function definitions into the header file. Why? Because the header file is used as the PUBLIC interface to your class. It's the outside of the "black box".
When you need to look at a class to reference how to use it, you should look at the header file. The header file should give a list of what it can do (commented to describe the details of how to use each function), and it should include a list of the member variables. It SHOULD NOT include HOW each individual function is implemented, because that's a boat load of unnecessary information and only clutters the header file.
If this new way is really The Way, we might have been running into different direction in our projects.
Because we try to avoid all unnecessary things in headers. That includes avoiding header cascade. Code in headers will propably need some other header to be included, which will need another header and so on. If we are forced to use templates, we try avoid littering headers with template stuff too much.
Also we use "opaque pointer"-pattern when applicable.
With these practices we can do faster builds than most of our peers. And yes... changing code or class members will not cause huge rebuilds.
I put all the implementation out of the class definition. I want to have the doxygen comments out of the class definition.
IMHO, He has merit ONLY if he's doing templates and/or metaprogramming. There's plenty of reasons already mentioned that you limit header files to just declarations. They're just that... headers. If you want to include code, you compile it as a library and link it up.
Doesn't that really depends on the complexity of the system, and the in-house conventions?
At the moment I am working on a neural network simulator that is incredibly complex, and the accepted style that I am expected to use is:
Class definitions in classname.h
Class code in classnameCode.h
executable code in classname.cpp
This splits up the user-built simulations from the developer-built base classes, and works best in the situation.
However, I'd be surprised to see people do this in, say, a graphics application, or any other application that's purpose is not to provide users with a code base.
Template code should be in headers only. Apart from that all definitions except inlines should be in .cpp. The best argument for this would be the std library implementations which follow the same rule. You would not disagree the std lib developers would be right regarding this.
I think your co-worker is right as long as he does not enter in the process to write executable code in the header.
The right balance, I think, is to follow the path indicated by GNAT Ada where the .ads file gives a perfectly adequate interface definition of the package for its users and for its childs.
By the way Ted, have you had a look on this forum to the recent question on the Ada binding to the CLIPS library you wrote several years ago and which is no more available (relevant Web pages are now closed). Even if made to an old Clips version, this binding could be a good start example for somebody willing to use the CLIPS inference engine within an Ada 2012 program.
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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
When working on a big C/C++ project, do you have some specific rules regarding the #include within source or header files?
For instance, we can imagine to follow one of these two excessive rules:
#include are forbidden in .h files; it is up to each .c file to include all the headers it needs
Each .h file should include all its dependancies, i.e. it should be able to compile alone without any error.
I suppose there is trade-off in between for any project, but what is yours? Do you have more specific rules? Or any link that argues for any of the solutions?
If you include H-files exclusively into C-files, then including a H-file into a C-file might cause compilation to fail. It might fail because you may have to include 20 other H-files upfront, and even worse, you have to include them in the right order. With a real lot of H-files, this system ends up to be an administrative nightmare in the long run. All you wanted to do was including one H-file and you ended up spending two hours to find out which other H-files in which order you will need to include as well.
If a H-file can only be successfully included into a C-file in case another H-file is included first, then the first H-file should include the second one and so on. That way you can simply include every H-file into every C-file you like without having to fear that this may break compilation. That way you only specify your direct dependencies, yet if these dependencies themselves also have dependencies, its up to them to specify those.
On the other hand, don't include H-files into H-files if that isn't necessary. hashtable.h should only include other header files that are required to use your hashtable implementation. If the implementation itself needs hashing.h, then include it in hashtable.c, not in hashtable.h, as only the implementation needs it, not the code that only would like to use the final hashtable.
I think both suggested rules are bad. In my part I always apply:
Include only the header files required to compile a file using only what is defined in this header. This means:
All objects present as reference or pointers only should be forward-declared
Include all headers defining functions or objects used in the header itself.
I would use the rule 2:
All Headers should be self-sufficient, be it by:
not using anything defined elsewhere
forward declaring symbols defined elsewhere
including the headers defining the symbols that can't be forward-declared.
Thus, if you have an empty C/C++ source file, including an header should compile correctly.
Then, in the C/C++ source file, include only what is necessary: If HeaderA forward-declared a symbol defined in HeaderB, and that you use this symbol you'll have to include both... The good news being that if you don't use the forward-declared symbol, then you'll be able to include only HeaderA, and avoid including HeaderB.
Note that playing with templates makes this verification "empty source including your header should compile" somewhat more complicated (and amusing...)
The first rule will fail as soon as there are circular dependencies. So it cannot be applied strictly.
(This can still be made to work but this shifts a whole lot of work from the programmer to the consumer of these libraries which is obviously wrong.)
I'm all in favour of rule 2 (although it might be good to include “forward declaration headers” instead of the real deal, as in <iosfwd> because this reduces compile time). Generally, I believe it's a kind of self-documentation if a header file “declares” what dependencies it has – and what better way to do this than to include the required files?
EDIT:
In the comments, I've been challenged that circular dependencies between headers are a sign of bad design and should be avoided.
That's not correct. In fact, circular dependencies between classes may be unavoidable and aren't a sign of bad design at all. Examples are abundant, let me just mention the Observer pattern which has a circular reference between the observer and the subject.
To resolve the circularity between classes, you have to employ forward declaration because the order of declaration matters in C++. Now, it is completely acceptable to handle this forward declaration in a circular manner to reduce the number of overall files and to centralize code. Admittedly, the following case doesn't merit from this scenario because there's only a single forward declaration. However, I've worked on a library where this has been much more.
// observer.hpp
class Observer; // Forward declaration.
#ifndef MYLIB_OBSERVER_HPP
#define MYLIB_OBSERVER_HPP
#include "subject.hpp"
struct Observer {
virtual ~Observer() = 0;
virtual void Update(Subject* subject) = 0;
};
#endif
// subject.hpp
#include <list>
struct Subject; // Forward declaration.
#ifndef MYLIB_SUBJECT_HPP
#define MYLIB_SUBJECT_HPP
#include "observer.hpp"
struct Subject {
virtual ~Subject() = 0;
void Attach(Observer* observer);
void Detach(Observer* observer);
void Notify();
private:
std::list<Observer*> m_Observers;
};
#endif
A minimal version of 2. .h files include only the header files it specifically requires to compile, using forward declaration and pimpl as much as is practical.
Always have some sort of header guard.
Do not pollute the user's global namespace by putting any using namespace statements in a header.
I'd recommend going with the second option. You often end up in the situation where you want to add somwhing to a header file that suddenly requires another header file. And with the first option, you would have to go through and update lots of C files, sometimes not even under your control. With the second option, you simply update the header file, and the users who don't even need the new functionality you just added needn't even know you did it.
The first alternative (no #includes in headers) is a major no-no for me. I want to freely #include whatever I might need without worrying about manually #includeing its dependencies as well. So, in general, I follow the second rule.
Regarding cyclic dependencies, my personal solution is to structure my projects in terms of modules rather than in terms of classes. Inside a module, all types and functions may have arbitrary dependencies on one another. Across module boundaries, there may not be circular dependencies between modules. For each module, there is a single *.hpp file and a single *.cpp file. This ensures that any forward declarations (necessary for circular dependencies, which can only happen inside a module) in a header are ultimately always resolved inside the same header. There is no need for forward-declaration-only headers whatsoever.
Pt. 1 fails when you would like to have precompiled headers through a certain header; eg. this is what StdAfx.h are for in VisualStudio: you put all common headers there...
This comes down to interface design:
Always pass by reference or pointer. If you aren't going to check the pointer, pass by
reference.
Forward declare as much as possible.
Never use new in a class - create factories to do that for you and pass them to the class.
Never use pre-compiled headers.
In Windows my stdafx only ever includes afx___.h headers - no string, vector or boost libraries.
Rule nr. 1 would require you to list your header files in a very specific order (include files of base classes must go before include files of derived classes, etc), which would easily lead to compilation errors if you get the order wrong.
The trick is, as several others have mentioned, use forward declarations as much as possible, i.e. if references or pointers are used. To minimize build dependencies in this way the pimpl idiom can be useful.
I agree with Mecki, to put it shorter,
for every foo.h in your project include only those headers that are required to make
// foo.c
#include "any header"
// end of foo.c
compile.
(When using precompiled headers, they are allowed, of course - e.g. the #include "stdafx.h" in MSVC)
Personally I do it this way:
1 Perfer forward declare to include other .h files in a .h file. If something could be used as pointer/reference in that .h files or class, forward declare is possible without compile error. This could make headers less include dependencies(save compile time? not sure:( ).
2 Make .h files simple or specific. e.g. it is bad to define all constances in a file called CONST.h, it is better to divid them into multiple ones like CONST_NETWORK.h, CONST_DB.h. So to use one constance of DB, it needn't to include other information about network.
3 Don't put implementation in headers. Headers are used to quick review public things for other people; when implementing them, don't pollute declaration with detail for others.