In standard library, I found that namespace std is declared as a macro.
#define _STD_BEGIN namespace std {
#define _STD_END }
Is this a best practice when using namespaces?
The macro is declared in Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC\include\yvals.h. But I couldn't find the STL files including this. If it is not included, how it can be used?
Any thoughts..?
Probably not a best practice as it can be difficult to read compared to a vanilla namespace declaration. That said, remember rules don't always apply universally, and I'm sure there is some scenario where a macro might clean things up considerably.
"But I couldn't find the STL files including this. If it is not included, how it can be used?".
All files that use this macro include yvals.h somehow. For example <vector> includes <memory>, which includes <iterator>, which includes <xutility>, which includes <climits>, which includes <yvals.h>. The chain may be deep, but it does include it it some point.
And I want to clarify, this only applies to this particular implementation of the standard library; this is in no way standardized.
In general No. The macros were probably used at the time when namespaces were not implemented by some compilers, or for compatibity with specific platforms.
No idea. The file would probably be included by some other file that was included into the STL file.
One approach that I saw in a library that I recently used was:
BEGIN_NAMESPACE_XXX()
where XXX is the number of namespace levels for example:
BEGIN_NAMESPACE_3(ns1, ns1, ns3)
would take three arguments and expand to
namespace ns1 {
namespace ns2 {
namespace ns2 {
and a matching END_NAMESPACE_3 would expand to
}
}
}
(I have added the newlines and indentation for clarity's sake only)
I imagine the only reason to do this is if you want to make it easy to change the namespace used by your application / library, or disable namespaces altogether for compatibility reasons.
I could see doing this for the C libraries that are included in C++ by reference (eg., the header that C calls string.h and that C++ calls cstring). In that case, the macro definition would depend on an #ifdef _c_plus_plus.
I wouldn't do it in general. I can't think of any compiler worth using that doesn't support namespaces, exceptions, templates or other "modern" C++ features (modern is in quotes because these features were added in the mid to late '90s). In fact, by my definition, compilers are only worth using if they offer good support for their respective language. This isn't a language issue; it's a simple case of "if I chose language X, I'd prefer to use it as it exists today, not as it existed a decade or two ago." I've never understood why some projects spend time trying to support pre-ANSI C compilers, for instance.
Related
I'm writing some c++ code that makes use of std::string.
I wanted to see how to code is written, so I went into the source code. (ctrl + left click).
I noticed, that there are macros everywhere.
The code even ends with:
_STD_END
// Corresponds to: #define _STD_END }
I get why macros are useful, and I use them for my own Log.hpp file, but I don't understand why anyone would use macros such as _STD_END instead of just writing }.
Just to clear up, my question is why he author of std::string, P.J. Plauger, decided to use macros in this way, and if I also should?
That’s the Dinkumware library, which Microsoft licenses (although they've recently taken over full maintenance of their version). The _STD_BEGIN and _STD_END macros are used for customizing the std namespace. Some compilers don't (didn't?) support namespaces; for those compilers, the macro expansions are empty. Some compilers need some indirection, and those macros expand into directives that put the code into an implementor-specific namespace (i.e., a namespace whose name begins with an underscore followed by a capital letter), which may or may not be complemented by a using-directive to pull the contents of that namespace into std. And in many cases they expand into the obvious, ordinary namespace std { and }, respectively.
In short, they're about configurability for a multi-platform library implementation.
I worked for Dinkumware for quite a few years, so I have first-hand knowledge.
I am a C++ newcomer, trying to learn the language in parallel as I work on a project that requires it. I am using a fairly popular and stable open source library to do a lot of heavy lifting. Reading through the source, tutorials and code samples for the library, I have noticed that they always use fully qualified names when declaring types, which often results in very long and verbose lines with lots of ::'s. Is this considered best practice in C++? Is there a different way to deal with this?
They may have found it easier than answering lots of questions from people who tried the example code and found it didn't work, just because they didn't "use" the namespaces involved.
Practices vary - if you're working on a large project with lots of diverse libraries and name clashes, you may wish to proactively use more namespace qualifiers consistently so that as you add new code you won't have to go and make old code more explicit about what it's trying to use.
Stylistically, some people prefer knowing exactly what's being referred to to potentially having to dig around or follow an IDE "go to declaration" feature (if available), while other people like concision and to see fuller namespace qualification only on the "exceptional" references to namespaces that haven't been included - a more contextual perspective.
It's also normal to avoid having "using namespace xxx;" in a header file, as client code including that header won't be able to turn it off, and the contents of that namespace will be permanently dumped into their default "search space". So, if you're looking at code in a header that's one reason they might be more explicit. Contrasting with that, you can having "using namespace" inside a scope such as a function body - even in a header - and it won't affect other code. It's more normal to use an namespace from within an implementation file that you expect to be the final file in a translation unit, compiling up to a library or object that you'll link into the final executable, or perhaps a translation unit that itself creates the executable.
First typedefs:
typedef std::vector<MyTypeWithLongName>::const_iterator MyTypeIt;
//use MyTypeIt from now on
Second "using"
using std::string;
//use string instead of std::string from now on
Third "using namespace"
using namespace std;
//Use all things from std-namespace without std:: in front (string, vector, sort etc.)
For the best practice: Don't use 'using' and 'using namespace' a lot. When you have to use it (sometimes keeps the code cleaner) never put it in the header but in the .cpp file.
I tend to use one of those above if the names get really long or I have to use the types a lot in the same file.
If you are writing your own libraries you will certainly have heavy use of namespaces, In your core application there should be fewer uses. As for doing something like std::string instead of starting with using namespace std; imo the first version is better because It is more descriptive and less prone to errors
Boost's C99 stdint implementation is awfully handy. One thing bugs me, though. They dump all of their typedefs into the boost namespace. This leaves me with three choices when using this facility:
Use "using namespace boost"
Use "using boost::[u]<type><width>_t"
Explicitly refer to the target type with the boost:: prefix; e.g., boost::uint32_t foo = 0;
Option № 1 kind of defeats the point of namespaces. Even if used within local scope (e.g., within a function), things like function arguments still have to be prefixed like option № 3.
Option № 2 is better, but there are a bunch of these types, so it can get noisy.
Option № 3 adds an extreme level of noise; the boost:: prefix is often ≥ to the length of the type in question.
My question is: What would be the most elegant way to bring all of these types into the global namespace? Should I just write a wrapper around boost/cstdint.hpp that utilizes option № 2 and be done with it?
Also, wrapping the header like so didn't work on VC++ 10 (problems with standard library headers):
namespace Foo
{
#include <boost/cstdint.hpp>
namespace boost_alias = boost;
}
using namespace Foo::boost_alias;
EDIT: I guess another option is to use the preprocessor to make it work on VC 10? Taking the snippet above:
#ifndef FOO_HPP_INCLUDED
#define FOO_HPP_INCLUDED
#if _MSC_VER >= 1600 /*VC++ 10*/ || defined USE_NATIVE_STDINT_HEADER
#include <stdint.h>
#else
namespace cstdint_wrapper
{
#include <boost/cstdint.hpp>
namespace boost_alias = boost;
}
using namespace cstdint_wrapper::boost_alias;
#endif
#endif
Less work, I guess?
I just use C99's stdint.h (it's actually now in VS 2010). For the versions of Visual C/C++ that don't include it, I use a public domain version from MinGW that I modified to work with VC6 (from when I had to work in VC6):
http://snipplr.com/view/18199/stdinth/
There are a couple other options you might consider in this SO question: C99 stdint.h header and MS Visual Studio
If you'd like to continue using boost/cstdint.hpp, I'd say that the suggestion of implementing a wrapper header that brings the types into the global namespace would be the way to go.
Does boost/cstdint.hpp provide anything I should know about that isn't in stdint.h?
Your idea of writing a wrapper header that implements option 2 is definitely the better of those three options.
What I'd suggest, though, is a slight variant: Put those using declarations within another namespace, such as cstdint or something; then, you have the option if putting using cstdint; in your own code or explicitly specifying cstdint:: on the particular uses.
If you included directly the file you will be forced to prefix it with std::. So the question is, which option would you take in this case. What would you do with the other types introduced by Boost? Would you prefix them with boost:: or not?
The fist one is clearly a bad option.
You can implement option two using your my_cstdint.hpp file
#include <boost/cstdint.hpp>
using boost::uint32_t;
...
and include my_cstdint.hpp in your application. But in my opinion it is a bad idea to add new symbols on the root namespace, you can get more conflicts as the types can be already defined by for example the stdint.h C file.
Even if the third option use a lot of characters, namespaces are there for this purpose. boost::uint32_t will be defined to the correct type depending on your toolset, so just use it, as you would use std::uint32_t.
I personally always use option 3. If things are too long, then you can use typedefs to reduce the amount of code.
The C++ Programming Language : Special Edition states on page 431 that...
For every header < X.h > defining part of the C standard library in the global namespace and also in namespace std, there is a header < cX > defining the same names in the std namespace only.
However, when I use C headers in the < cX > style, I don't need to qualify the namespace. For example...
#include <cmath>
void f() {
double var = sqrt( 17 );
}
This would compile fine. Even though the book says that using the < cX > header defines names in the std namespace only, you are allowed to use those names without qualifying the namespace. What am I missing here?
P.S. Using the GNU.GCC compiler
Stephan T. Lavavej, a member of the MSVC team, addresses the reality of this situation (and some of the refinements to the standard) in this comment on one of his blog postings (http://blogs.msdn.com/vcblog/archive/2008/08/28/the-mallocator.aspx#8904359):
> also, <cstddef>, <cstdlib>, and std::size_t etc should be used!
I used to be very careful about that. C++98 had a splendid dream wherein <cfoo> would declare everything within namespace std, and <foo.h> would include <cfoo> and then drag everything into the global namespace with using-declarations. (This is D.5 [depr.c.headers].)
This was ignored by lots of implementers (some of which had very little control over the C Standard Library headers). So, C++0x has been changed to match reality. As of the N2723 Working Paper, http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2723.pdf , now <cfoo> is guaranteed to declare everything within namespace std, and may or may not declare things within the global namespace. <foo.h> is the opposite: it is guaranteed to declare everything within the global namespace, and may or may not declare things within namespace std.
In reality and in C++0x, including <cfoo> is no safeguard against everything getting declared in the global namespace anyways. That's why I'm ceasing to bother with <cfoo>.
This was Library Issue 456, http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#456 .
(C++0x still deprecates the <foo.h> headers from the C Standard Library, which is hilarious.)
I'm in 100% agreement with Lavavej, except I never tried to be very careful about using the <cfoo> style headers even when I first started using C++ - the standard C ones were just too ingrained - and there was never any real world problem using them (and apparently there was never any real world benefit to using the <cfoo> style headers).
The rule for the C libraries differs from C++ libraries for namespaces
gcc interprets the standard in Gcc docs as
The standard specifies that if one includes the C-style header (<math.h> in this case), the symbols will be available in the global namespace and perhaps in namespace std:: (but this is no longer a firm requirement.) One the other hand, including the C++-style header (<cmath>) guarantees that the entities will be found in namespace std and perhaps in the global namespace.
In the draft C0X++ spec it says in section 17.6.2.3 Headers
It is unspecified whether these names are first declared within the global namespace scope and are then injected
into namespace std by explicit using-declarations
It's hard to fix this without implementing the C library twice. See DR 456, which basically proposes giving up on the problem.
Why do you say "This would compile fine" when it violates the Standard? Who allows you to use those names without qualifying the namespace? Have you tested this on a particular implementation and found that it works?
I strongly advise against using some particular non-standard feature because it happens to work on your compiler of choice. Such things break easily, perhaps with a later version of the same compiler.
You are probably missing using a standards-conformant compiler (or the one you use is configured to be compatible with pre-standard code).
I'm looking to have two versions of BOOST compiled into a project at the same time. Ideally they should be usable along these lines:
boost_1_36_0::boost::shared_ptr<SomeClass> someClass = new SomeClass();
boost_1_35_0::boost::regex expression("[0-9]", boost_1_35_0::boost::regex_constants::basic);
I read (well scanned) through the development list discussion. There's no easy solution. To sum up:
Wrapping header files in a namespace declaration
namespace boost_1_36_0 {
#include <boost_1_36_0/boost/regex.hpp>
}
namespace boost_1_35_0 {
#include <boost_1_35_0/boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
}
Requires modifying source files
Doesn't allow for both versions to be included in the same translation unit, due to the fact that macros do not respect namespaces.
Defining boost before including headers
#define boost boost_1_36_0
#include <boost_1_36_0/boost/regex.hpp>
#undef boost
#define boost boost_1_35_0
#include <boost_1_35_0/boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#undef boost
Source files can simply be compiled with -Dboost=boost_1_36_0
Still doesn't address macro conflicts in a single translation unit.
Some internal header file inclusions may be messed up, since this sort of thing does happen.
#if defined(SOME_CONDITION)
# define HEADER <boost/some/header.hpp>
#else
# define HEADER <boost/some/other/header.hpp>
#endif
But it may be easy enough to work around those cases.
Modifying the entire boost library to replace namespace boost {..} with namespace boost_1_36_0 {...} and then providing a namespace alias. Replace all BOOST_XYZ macros and their uses with BOOST_1_36_0_XYZ macros.
This would likely work if you were willing to put into the effort.
Using bcp can install boost library to a specific location and can replace all 'namespace boost' in their code to a custom alias. Assuming our alias is 'boost_1_36_0' all 'namespace boost' code blocks will start with 'boost_1_36_0'. Something like
bcp --namespace=boost_1_36_0 --namespace-alias shared_ptr regex /path/to/install
, but check the documentation in the link yourself because I'm not sure if it is legal syntaxis.
#Josh:
While I agree with the shivering, I still believe this is the better course of action. Otherwise, linking troubles are a certainty. I've had the situation before where I had to hack the compiled libraries using objcopy to avoid definition conflicts. It was a nightmare for platform interoperability reasons because the name mangling works very differently even in different versions of the same compilers (in my case, GCC).
You'll have a world of trouble linking because the mangled names will be different. And yes, I see you knew that, but it seems like it will be trouble all around.