I had a question: Supposed I have a header/source file set and a header set as follows"
BaseCharacter.h and BaseCharacter.cpp and EventTypes.h
BaseCharacter.h makes use of structs and typedefs defined in EventTypes.h, but EventTypes.h has to be aware of the BaseCharacter class defined in BaseCharacter.h. This creates a cyclical dependency and I'm pretty sure that's whats stopping my program from compiling. If I take out EventTypes.h and all the methods that rely on the stuff in EventTypes.h, my program compiles fine. But if I added EventTypes.h, it, and every file referencing BaseCharacter.h will complain that it can't find the BaseCharacter class.
Is there a way around this dependency or would this not be what's causing my problem?
I'm using MSVC 2010 as my compiler
Forward declaration.
In EventTypes.h, remove the include and add:
class BaseCharacter;
Note that you can only use references and pointers to BaseCharacter within EventTypes.h, you cannot e.g. have a struct with a BaseCharacter myChar; member variable.
You should probably have a good look at your design and make sure it makes sense; often cyclical dependencies indicate a sub-optimal design (though it's possible that it's the best solution for your needs).
In any case, you can predeclare the classes upfront in each header file, thus avoiding having circular includes. This is called using forward declarations.
Another good option would be to extract the stuff that both BaseCharacter.h and EventTypes.h depend on into a third header file that the first two include; then you'd only have a one-way dependency of EventTypes.h on BaseCharacter.h.
A third alternative is to simply merge everything into one header file; this may or may not make sense based on your design, but if the inter-dependencies are strong enough, then surely a unified model makes sense?
You want to learn how to forward declare classes and structs.
See here: cyclic dependency between header files
or here: C++ error: 'Line2' has not been declared
Just to add to the answers mentioning forward declaration, there is another alternative which is slightly different, and it is called PIMPL, which stands for Pointer to IMPlementation. It is often used in conjunction with forward declaration, but can be used without. Not only it helps to solve cyclic dependency problems, but can also dramatically speed up build time and reduce code dependency.
Once I had similar problem, solved it with templates. Can't you define the EventTypes and/or BaseCharacter as template?
Related
For now I do not use header files at all. Classes are each in a single .cpp file completely. But to save compile time I want to make use of header files now. My hope is that Visual Studio won't compile classes which weren't modified for debug builds then.
Is there a way to mention only public methods and members in the header file. In theory that would be enough information for the compiler. If another file, say main.cpp includes the class header there is no need for private methods and members, is it?
How can I use header files without retyping the names of private methods and members? The reasons for me to want so is coding productivity. When I want do add a small helper function to the class used by another method, I don't want to have to also add it's signature to the header file.
If another file, say main.cpp includes the class header there is no need for private methods and members, is it?
No, public methods and members aren't necessarily enough. For example, if another .cpp file were to try and create an instance of your class:
SomeClass instance;
the compiler will need to know, among other things, how much memory to allocate for SomeClass. For that it requires full knowledge of SomeClass's private data members.
The way you are framing the question makes it sound as if you were intent on fighting the language. I don't think that's a good way to go about it. I think the best way is to do things the way things are usually done in the language of your choice, and depart from that only when there is a specific, clearly understood need.
The way things are usually done in C++ is that the entire class declaration goes in the header file, and the definition is in some way split between the header file and the corresponding .cpp file. The exact split is determined by various technical considerations. For example, templates and inline functions normally have to appear in the header file. On the other hand, placing code in header files increases dependencies and potentially build times.
There are ways to address these issues. However, since this involves extra complexity, I'd argue that this should only be done if there is a clearly identifiable need.
I don't know of a way to do what you're asking, but there is another way to give some isolation. You might want to take a look at the pimpl idiom as it offers isolation about private information. It's a little bit of extra work, but it can be extremely useful, especially in large projects.
All function declarations should go in header files and all function definitions should go in cpp files. It's not good coding practice to put declarations inside the cpp files.
You could put definitions inside headers though, when you write templates or inline functions.
Once you declare the class in the header file, you have to declare all its methods and members inside the class' declaration in the header, given that your class is no longer declared in the cpp file.
I'm using shared_ptr and STL extensively in a project, and this is leading to over-long, error-prone types like shared_ptr< vector< shared_ptr<const Foo> > > (I'm an ObjC programmer by preference, where long names are the norm, and still this is way too much.) It would be much clearer, I believe, to consistently call this FooListPtr and documenting the naming convention that "Ptr" means shared_ptr and "List" means vector of shared_ptr.
This is easy to typedef, but it's causing headaches with the headers. I seem to have several options of where to define FooListPtr:
Foo.h. That entwines all the headers and creates serious build problems, so it's a non-starter.
FooFwd.h ("forward header"). This is what Effective C++ suggests, based on iosfwd.h. It's very consistent, but the overhead of maintaining twice the number of headers seems annoying at best.
Common.h (put all of them together into one file). This kills reusability by entwining a lot of unrelated types. You now can't just pick up one object and move it to another project. That's a non-starter.
Some kind of fancy #define magic that typedef's if it hasn't already been typedefed. I have an abiding dislike for the preprocessor because I think it makes it hard for new people to grok the code, but maybe....
Use a vector subclass rather than a typedef. This seems dangerous...
Are there best practices here? How do they turn out in real code, when reusability, readability and consistency are paramount?
I've marked this community wiki if others want to add additional options for discussion.
I'm programming on a project which sounds like it uses the common.h method. It works very well for that project.
There is a file called ForwardsDecl.h which is in the pre-compiled header and simply forward-declares all the important classes and necessary typedefs. In this case unique_ptr is used instead of shared_ptr, but the usage should be similar. It looks like this:
// Forward declarations
class ObjectA;
class ObjectB;
class ObjectC;
// List typedefs
typedef std::vector<std::unique_ptr<ObjectA>> ObjectAList;
typedef std::vector<std::unique_ptr<ObjectB>> ObjectBList;
typedef std::vector<std::unique_ptr<ObjectC>> ObjectCList;
This code is accepted by Visual C++ 2010 even though the classes are only forward-declared (the full class definitions are not necessary so there's no need to include each class' header file). I don't know if that's standard and other compilers will require the full class definition, but it's useful that it doesn't: another class (ObjectD) can have an ObjectAList as a member, without needing to include ObjectA.h - this can really help reduce header file dependencies!
Maintenance is not particularly an issue, because the forwards declarations only need to be written once, and any subsequent changes only need to happen in the full declaration in the class' header file (and this will trigger fewer source files to be recompiled due to reduced dependencies).
Finally it appears this can be shared between projects (I haven't tried myself) because even if a project does not actually declare an ObjectA, it doesn't matter because it was only forwards declared and if you don't use it the compiler doesn't care. Therefore the file can contain the names of classes across all projects it's used in, and it doesn't matter if some are missing for a particular project. All that is required is the necessary full declaration header (e.g. ObjectA.h) is included in any source (.cpp) files that actually use them.
I would go with a combined approach of forward headers and a kind of common.h header that is specific to your project and just includes all the forward declaration headers and any other stuff that is common and lightweight.
You complain about the overhead of maintaining twice the number of headers but I don’t think this should be too much of a problem: the forward headers usually only need to know a very limited number of types (one?), and sometimes not even the full type.
You could even try auto-generating the headers using a script (this is done e.g. in SeqAn) if there are really that many headers.
+1 for documenting the typedef conventions.
Foo.h - can you detail the problems you have with that?
FooFwd.h - I'd not use them generally, only on "obvious hotspots". (Yes, "hotspots" are hard to determine).
It doesn't change the rules IMO because when you do introduce a fwd header, the associated typedefs from foo.h move there.
Common.h - cool for small projects, but doesn't scale, I do agree.
Some kind of fancy #define... PLEASE NO!...
Use a vector subclass - doesn't make it better.
You might use containment, though.
So here the prelimenary suggestions (revised from that other question..)
Standard type headers <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>, <vector> etc. can go into a precompiled header / shared include file for the project. This is not bad. (I personally still include them where needed, but that works in addition to putting them into the PCH.)
If the container is an implementation detail, the typedefs go where the container is declared (e.g. private class members if the container is a private class member)
Associated types (like FooListPtr) go to where Foo is declarated, if the associated type is the primary use of the type. That's almost always true for some types - e.g. shared_ptr.
If Foo gets a separate forward declaration header, and the associated type is ok with that, it moves to the FooFwd.h, too.
If the type is only associated with a particular interface (e.g. parameter for a public method), it goes there.
If the type is shared (and does not meet any of the previous criteria), it gets its own header. Note that this also means to pull in all dependencies.
It feels "obvious" for me, but I agree it's not good as a coding standard.
I'm using shared_ptr and STL extensively in a project, and this is leading to over-long, error-prone types like shared_ptr< vector< shared_ptr > > (I'm an ObjC programmer by preference, where long names are the norm, and still this is way too much.) It would be much clearer, I believe, to consistently call this FooListPtr and documenting the naming convention that "Ptr" means shared_ptr and "List" means vector of shared_ptr.
for starters, i recommend using good design structures for scoping (e.g., namespaces) as well as descriptive, non-abbreviated names for typedefs. FooListPtr is terribly short, imo. nobody wants to guess what an abbreviation means (or be surprised to find Foo is const, shared, etc.), and nobody wants to alter their code simply because of scope collisions.
it may also help to choose a prefix for typedefs in your libraries (as well as other common categories).
it's also a bad idea to drag types out of their declared scope:
namespace MON {
namespace Diddy {
class Foo;
} /* << Diddy */
/*...*/
typedef Diddy::Foo Diddy_Foo;
} /* << MON */
there are exceptions to this:
an entirely ecapsualted private type
a contained type within a new scope
while we're at it, using in namespace scopes and namespace aliases should be avoided - qualify the scope if you want to minimize future maintentance.
This is easy to typedef, but it's causing headaches with the headers. I seem to have several options of where to define FooListPtr:
Foo.h. That entwines all the headers and creates serious build problems, so it's a non-starter.
it may be an option for declarations which really depend on other declarations. implying that you need to divide packages, or there is a common, localized interface for subsystems.
FooFwd.h ("forward header"). This is what Effective C++ suggests, based on iosfwd.h. It's very consistent, but the overhead of maintaining twice the number of headers seems annoying at best.
don't worry about the maintenance of this, really. it is a good practice. the compiler uses forward declarations and typedefs with very little effort. it's not annoying because it helps reduce your dependencies, and helps ensure that they are all correct and visible. there really isn't more to maintain since the other files refer to the 'package types' header.
Common.h (put all of them together into one file). This kills reusability by entwining a lot of unrelated types. You now can't just pick up one object and move it to another project. That's a non-starter.
package based dependencies and inclusions are excellent (ideal, really) - do not rule this out. you'll obviously have to create package interfaces (or libraries) which are designed and structured well, and represent related classes of components. you're making an unnecessary issue out of object/component reuse. minimize the static data of a library, and let the link and strip phases do their jobs. again, keep your packages small and reusable and this will not be an issue (assuming your libraries/packages are well designed).
Some kind of fancy #define magic that typedef's if it hasn't already been typedefed. I have an abiding dislike for the preprocessor because I think it makes it hard for new people to grok the code, but maybe....
actually, you may declare a typedef in the same scope multiple times (e.g., in two separate headers) - that is not an error.
declaring a typedef in the same scope with different underlying types is an error. obviously. you must avoid this, and fortunately the compiler enforces that.
to avoid this, create a 'translation build' which includes the world - the compiler will flag declarations of typedeffed types which don't match.
trying to sneak by with minimal typedefs and/or forwards (which are close enough to free at compilation) is not worth the effort. sometimes you'll need a bunch of conditional support for forward declarations - once that is defined, it is easy (stl libraries are a good example of this -- in the event you are also forward declaring template<typename,typename>class vector;).
it's best to just have all these declarations visible to catch any errors immediately, and you can avoid the preprocessor in this case as a bonus.
Use a vector subclass rather than a typedef. This seems dangerous...
a subclass of std::vector is often flagged as a "beginner's mistake". this container was not meant to be subclassed. don't resort to bad practices simply to reduce your compile times/dependencies. if the dependency really is that significant, you should probably be using PIMPL, anyways:
// <package>.types.hpp
namespace MON {
class FooListPtr;
}
// FooListPtr.hpp
namespace MON {
class FooListPtr {
/* ... */
private:
shared_ptr< vector< shared_ptr<const Foo> > > d_data;
};
}
Are there best practices here? How do they turn out in real code, when reusability, readability and consistency are paramount?
ultimately, i've found a small concise package based approach the best for reuse, for reducing compile times, and minimizing dependence.
Unfortunately with typedefs you have to choose between not ideal options for your header files. There are special cases where option one (right in the class header) works well, but it sounds like it won't work for you. There are also cases where the last option works well, but it's usually where you are using the subclass to replace a pattern involving a class with a single member of type std::vector. For your situation, I'd use the forward declaring header solution. There's extra typing and overhead, but it wouldn't be C++ otherwise, right? It keeps things separate, clean and fast.
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.
Is there a way to hide private data members of a C++ class away from its users, in the cpp file? I think of the private members as part of the implementation and it seems a little backwards to declare them in the header file.
The "pimpl" idiom is how this is generally handled.
See
http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/024.htm
http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/028.htm
http://herbsutter.com/gotw/_100/ (updated for C++11)
you want to use something like the PIMPL idiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaque_pointer
See Pimpl Idiom
The classic way to do this is with a proxy pointer to an internal class which implements the functionality. There's no way to do partial class definitions in C++ that I know of.
Going commercial? ;)
You can create header files, in which you only declare the public and protected API.
The user is only presented with these, which they can include. They link their code with a library, which you built using the complete API and the definitions.
For inlined functions: make sure they are used in non-inlined code, then there will be a definition available in the library (I'm not sure it will be inlined in the user implemenation, however).
For templated code there is no real way around. One half-hearted solution is to make code, which uses the templated code with different object types. The user will be limited to these, because they are the only definitions available in your library.