According to my teacher, it's bad practice to write user-defined functions like this:
int DoubleNumber(int Number)
{
return Number * 2;
}
int main()
{
cout << DoubleNumber(8);
}
Instead, he says to always use forward declarations, even if the functions don't need any knowledge of each other:
int DoubleNumber(int Number); // Forward declaration.
int main()
{
cout << DoubleNumber(8);
}
int DoubleNumber(int Number) // Implementation.
{
return Number * 2;
}
I find this especially strange since he made a point of telling us how important it is that the forward declaration and implementation are exactly the same or you'll get errors. If it's such a big deal, why not just put it all above main()?
So, is it really bad practice to declare and implement at the same time? Does it even matter?
If you don't declare the forward declarations ("prototypes"), then you need to make sure that all your functions occur before any functions that depend on them, i.e. in the reverse order of the call graph. That's fine for a simple example as above, but is a complete pain for anything more realistic (and in some cases impossible, if there are any loops in the call graph).
I think your teacher is an old C programmer.
If you wrote a C program without forward declarations and one function called another function declared later in the file (or in a different compilation unit), the compiler would not complain but silently pretend to know what the prototype should be.
Debugging is horrible, if you don't know if your compiler is passing the arguments correctly. Therefore it was a good defensive policy to always declare all functions; at least the compiler could raise an error if the declaration did not match the implementation.
C compilers and tool have gotten better (I hope). It is still not an error to call an unknown function, but GCC for example is kind enough to warn by default.
But in C++ you can't call a function that hasn't been declared or defined. Consequently, C++ programmers don't worry much about forward declarations.
Your teacher's policy is horrible IMHO. Use forward declarations only when they're really needed. That way, their presence demonstrates their necessity, which gives the reader useful documentation (i.e., there may be mutual recursion between the functions). Of course you do need forward declarations in header files; that's what they're for.
In my first programming class, the teacher also emphasized this point. I'm not exactly sure there is a benefit to such a simple case in actual software.
However, it does prepare you for using header files if you haven't covered that yet. In a typical case, you will have a header file custom-math.h and source file custom-math.cpp where custom-math.h contains the forward declaration and custom-math.cpp the implementation. Doing so may increase compilation time significantly when doing modifications to function implementations only in large projects. It is also a convenient way to split your program into "logical" groups of functions and/or classes.
If you are going to put other functions in the same file as main(), then what you do probably depends on your personal preference. Some people prefer to have main() close to the top to get to the program logic right away. In this case, forward declare your functions.
Karl Knecthel writes "Use forward declarations only when they're really needed. That way, their presence demonstrates their necessity, which gives the reader useful documentation (i.e., there may be mutual recursion between the functions)." and IMHO that's sound advice.
Oli Charlesworth talks about "complete pain" for ordering functions so that they can be called without forward declarations. That's not my experience, and I cannot imagine how that pain/problem is accomplished. I suspect a PEBCAK problem there.
A practice of using forward declarations for all functions will not save you from PEBCAK problems, but they do introduce needless maintainance work and needless more code to relate to, and they do make it more unclear which functions really need forward declarations.
If you get to the point where forward declarations could help to see function signatures at a glance, when forced to some very simple editor, then there are two actions that should be taken: (1) refactoring of the code, and (2) switching to a better editor.
Cheers & hth.,
Ask your teacher about why he recommends this ;) Anyway, it's not bad practice in my opinion, and in most cases it doesn't even matter. The biggest advantage of declaring all functions upfront is that you have a high-level overview of what the code does.
Traditionally you'll be sticking all your prototypes in a header file, so they can be used by other source files - or at least, you'll put the ones you want to expose in the .h file.
As far as code where it's not necessary, there's something to be said for putting all your file-level declarations at the top (variables and functions) because it means you can move functions around at-will and not have to worry about it. Not to mention, I can see every function in a file right away. But something like:
void Func1() { ... }
...
void Func2() { ... }
...
void Func3() { ... }
...
int main() { Func1(); Func2(); Func3(); return 0; }
That - that is to say, a number of disjointed functions all called by main() - is a very common file, and it's perfectly reasonable to forgo the declaration.
Blanket rules are rarely correct. The public api you would normally expose through the prototypes in the header file. The rest of the functions will likely to be in an anonymous namespace in the cpp file. If those are called multiple times in the implementation it make sense to provide prototypes at the top, otherwise every function using them would have to provide prototypes before calling functions. At the same time if some function is used multiple times in the cpp file it might be an indication that it's universal enough to be moved to a common api. If the functions are not used all over the place, it's better to provide as limited exposure to them as possible, i.e. declaring and defining them close to the place they are called from.
Personally, I like to only forward declare anything that client code needs to know about (i.e. in a class header). Anything that's local to a class implementation (such as helper functions), should be defined prior to usage.
Of course at the end of the day, for the most part, it boils down to either personal preference or coding standard that your project is following.
Related
I'm working on a project and to clean the code up in a big function, there is a segment of it that I think should be a separate function. But that separate function will only be used once, inside that bigger function. How should I treat it? Should it just be a normal void or is there a keyword I can throw before it? Could it be an inline function? I've heard of those but don't totally understand what they do. Thanks!
Stick it in the same source (.cpp) file. Place it within a namespace {} -- an anonymous namespace. This guarantees it cannot be used/referred to outside of that source file, which both communucates to developers and compilers somewhat useful information.
inline all by itself is a bad idea due to potential odr violations (if another independent function with the same signature and name exists, bad things would happen). For "famous" functions in header files the risk is mitigated somewhat. inline once you put it in an anonymous namespace is innocuous, and may give amcompiler a hint that may be useful. It probably does not matter.
inline is used for small and simple functions where you want to avoid the overhead of calling the function. It basically copies the code of the inline function inside your bigger function.
http://www.cplusplus.com/articles/2LywvCM9/
Granting the run once need is inside a namespace, I thus instantiate a RunOnce object and passing a lambda:
namespace mystuff {
int somevars = 5;
RunOnce initialize([&](){
// do one-time initalization here
somevars = 0;
});
}
Where,
class RunOnce {
public:
RunOnce(std::function<void(void)> init) {
init();
}
}
It is normally recommended to place a code with the single, clearly defined responsibility into dedicated function, even it that function is only called once. At least this is that I have seen in all books on topic.
This make the code more readable, maintainable and also you can now write a Unit test for the extracted function. If the function is unlikely to require dedicated testing (well covered with wider Unit tests, etc), you can still define it separately in the same file with static keyword, so it does not conflict with anything outside.
I have a long and confusing static method in one of my classes. It is full or error checking code and as a consequence is turning into unreadable spaghetti! It looks something like this:
void myMethod(int foo, int bar)
{
int y = functionCall(foo);
if (!y)
{
int x = functionCall(bar);
if (!x)
{
// lots of code with further nested ifs for error checking
// it all starts to get a bit confusing
}
else
{
// error handling
}
}
else
{
// error handling
}
}
So that the code is readable and more modular (allowing me to more easily test/ maintain etc) I would like to break it down into some smaller functions. This is not about code reuse as the functions will only ever be called from this one place - it is purely about readability and making 100's of lines of complicated code more understandable for humans.
So my question is this.
If I am to do this will I lose efficiency as I am making unnecessary calls and so extra work for the processor?
If I make these smaller functions should I declare them inline to help the linker realise that they are only used by this one function and should be blown up in place?
Will the linker be able to manage this kind of optimization itself?
Finally if I am to declare it inline what is the correct way to do this?
Should I put the inline function declaration in the header file and the code body in the .cpp file?
i.e.
in MyClass.hpp :
inline static int myMethodPart1();
in MyClass.cpp
int MyClass::myMethodPart1()
{ /* body */ }
Or should I perhaps not declare it in the header or ..... ?
With regards to how to organize and divide the code, I would say you need to use good judgment. If you feel it is a problem big enough to post here, then addressing it is probably worth the effort. That said, I will try to address the components of your post individually.
The cost of function calls. Function calls are insanely cheap. The system essentially just dereferences a single pointer and it’s there. Similar already happens in loops, conditionals, and other forms of branching. Declaring:
While( x != 0 )
{
Do stuff;
}
Will compile, at a low level, to effectively having “do stuff;” as a separate function called repeatedly. As such, the cost of splitting your function into multiple functions is low and possibly, if done cleanly and with a smart compiler, non-existent.
Regarding inlining. As I explained in the comments, the inline keyword does not mean (quite) what you think it means and what it suggests it means. Compilers have a tendency to ignore inline with regards to actually inlining the function, and at best take it as a suggestion. What inline does do is prevent multiple definitions of the function from becoming an error. This is important behavior if you define a function within a header, because that function definition will be compiled into every cpp's object file. If not declared inline, linking these objects into an executable can generate a multiple definition error. Some compilers implicitly inline functions defined in such a way, but you should never depend upon compiler-specific behavior.
Actually getting a function inlined is to an extent up to the good graces of the compiler. I have seen it stated, although I cannot now find where, that defining a function within the class declaration (in the header) is a fairly strong nod to the compiler to inline.
That said, as I noted before, inlining is not a particularly important matter. The cost of calling a function is insanely low, and really the only area one should be concerned about it is in functions called often - like getter and setter functions.
How to use inline. Having established inline doesn't inline, usually, your question about using it is mostly addressed as above. If you define a function within the class declaration, use the inline keyword to avoid possible linker errors. Otherwise, it's largely a meaningless keyword to most modern compilers so far as I am aware.
Where to put functions formed from splitting a single function. This is very much an opinion based question but there are two options I think that seem best:
First, you can make it a protected member of the class. If you do so, you should probably include a symbolic nod that this is not a general-purpose function - a leading underscore in the name is typically the symbol for "do not touch."
Alternatively, you can define the extra functions in the .cpp file, not within the class itself. For example [MyClass.cpp]:
void functionA()
{
stuff;
}
void functionB()
{
stuff;
}
void MyClass::myFunction()
{
functionA();
functionB();
}
This completely prevents these functions form being called outside this cpp file. It also prevents calls from child classes, which may or may not be desirable behavior. Use your discretion in choosing where to put them.
A final note. Be careful about how you divide up complicated functions, or you could end up with something worse than a single function. Moving things elsewhere might only serve to hide the fact the actual logic is messy. I personally find it much simpler to follow a single branching function than one that calls other functions. It is more difficult to read, especially for someone not familiar with the code, if calls are being made outside the function for potentially non-obvious reasons.
It might be beneficial to think how you could reorganize the code to be simpler, if possible, and keep it in one function - or divide it in such a way it would be reusable.
This is the declaration in the header file:
class PrimeSieve
{
populate(int lim);
vector<int> sieve;
long long limit;
public:
unsigned int limit();
};
Should I define the accessor method in the .cpp file or in the .h, inline?
I'm new to C++, but I'd like to follow best practices. I've seen this around in some of the books—is this considered standard?
unsigned int limit() { return limit; };
Definitely write the accessor inline in the header file. It makes better optimizations possible, and doesn't reduce encapsulation (since changes to the format of private data require recompiling all units that include the header anyway).
In the case of a complicated algorithm, you might want to hide the definition in an implementation file. Or when the implementation requires some types/header files not otherwise required by the class definition. Neither of those cases applies to simple accessors.
For one-liners, put it inside the class definition. Slightly longer member functions should still be in the header file, but might be declared explicitly inline, following the class definition.
Most newer compilers are smart enough to inline what is necessary and leave everything else alone. So let the compiler do what its good at and don't try to second guess it.
Put all your code in the .cpp and the code declarations in the .h.
A good rule of thumb is to put all your code in the .cpp file, so this would argue against an inline function in the .h file.
For simple data types in classes fully visible to clients of the class, there is no real difference as you need to recompile the client whenever the class definition changes.
The main reason to make an accessor rather than use the member directly is to allow the implementation to remove the data member later on and still keep the interface compatible; if the interface containing the accessor is unchanged, the result is typically binary compatible, otherwise, it's source compatible. Having the accessor inline means defining it as part of the interface that you are changing, so you can ever only be source compatible.
The other reason to have an accessor is a DLL boundary: If your accessor needs to call into another function, and you allow it to be inlined, then this function's symbol needs to be exported to the client as well.
Depending on the complexity of the project, it can be beneficial to define an interface for your code as an abstract class, which allows you to change the implementation to your heart's content without the client ever seeing the change; in this case, accessors are defined as abstract in the interface class and clients cannot inline them, ever.
The argument for declaring the accessor inline is that this eliminates the call over-head, and can enable some further optimisations.
My experienced of measured performance is that the gain from doing this is usually rather modest. I consequently no longer do it by default.
More than being kind of global programming standards, these vary from organizations to organizaions. Of course, getLimit() would still be better than mere limit().
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.