I'm interested in hearing what routines you have for cleaning up public header files you
distribute to customers.
Some things I'd like to hear your opinions on are:
Comments not meant for external consumption. Generally I like keeping documentation close
to the code and comments like this might not be a good idea to share:
/**
* #todo Should we change the signature of this function to
* make it obvious that xxx is really yyy?
*/
or perhaps:
/**
* #todo Add support for feature X
*/
Inconsistent tab styles:
void functionA(int a,
int b,
int c,
int d);
void functionB(int a,
int b,
int c);
Are there any tools for preparing headers or code in general for release?
You should ALWAYS, on any project involving multiple developers for any extended period of time and the subsequent release of that source code, SCAN FOR OBSCENITIES (and other things you shouldn't have said, e.g., "My boss made me do this", "This code is terrible", etc). Also, spell-checking the comments can be helpful, as people incorrectly spelling words saps from your credibility.
Please make sure that your headers don't generate any compiler warnings.
Always have somebody (preferably more than one) go through the header to look for anything that looks unprofessional. You can use code formatters and other automatic tools first.
For comments, have them look for anything unprofessional or tentative. Correct misspellings. Make sure they're accurate. Have a standard way to format them, and stick to it.
Check all identifier names. They should conform to a style guide and be professionally named.
Make sure all necessary comments are there. This includes copyright and contact information at the top. Come up with a standard method of documenting classes and such, and enforce it.
Basically, from my point of view, you want your headers to look like they were produced by drones without creativity or a sense of humor, but who are perfectly consistent (sort of like CPA stereotypes). (It's sort of like asking your developers to wear suits while customers are visiting the office - the customers will be happier if they don't see what your developers are really like.)
It'd generally be better if you had coding standards/formats for documents customers will see that the developers themselves follow when they first create the code, so you're not spending time cleaning up code before release, such as now.
Also, Visual Studio and several other IDE's have an "Auto Formatting" option where you can set up a style and it is applied to your code (tabs, spaces, that sort of thing). I think that's mostly what you're asking for here.
In my experience having an internally used header routinely and automatically cleaned up for public consumption is a hard task, and definitely error prone. Eventually the inconsistent format or the inappropriate comment will inevitable creep through.
In many cases you are probably better off wrapping everything into a small and clean interface, whose header is always maintained as clean and as commented as possible; modifications to that file should undergo, for instance, a particularly careful review process.
I'm not very familiar with the subject, but for open source projects you often have the licence and copyright statement at the top of the header. This can avoid several juridic issues.
Just as important as removing crufty comments is adding necessary ones. Things you might need to add:
copyright/terms-of-use header
contact information for support
links to documentation if it is being made available online
documentation of public interfaces (return values, parameters, pre- and post-conditions, etc)
warnings on functions/methods that are exposed but not intended for production use
G'day,
In C++ I like to use the Handle-Body idiom to decouple the implementation as much as possible from the public interface.
You should also make sure that any boilerplate, e.g. copyright notices, is consistent and up to date, e.g. copyright doesn't expire in 2008 for code released today.
Be consistent across all public header files for naming conventions, formatting, layout and class design otherwise it leaves an unprofesional impression on customers.
Make sure that there are no "using" declarations in your header files. Misuse of "using" dec's can seriously screw things up with inadvertent side effects.
As mentioned previously, make sure that your headers don't generate any warnings.
Finally. make sure you've got some good API documentaion to go with your header files.
Don't be like a company who provides a well known postcode lookup product. First version of the C API came with minimal documentation that was heavily based on the Windows GUI version. The header files simply consisted of functions whose parameters only had types and no names. And no comments at all.
Only way to work out what the functions actually did was to reverse engineer a simple lookup example program provided and reverse engineer it.
Still, after managing to do that I saved BBC's Children in Need tens of thousands of pounds per year because the addresses provided for fund-raising packs were more likely to be correct than in previous years!
Related
I am looking at various STL headers provided with compilers and I cant imagine the developers actually writing all this code by hand.
All the macros and the weird names of varaibles and classes - they would have to remember all of them! Seems error prone to me.
Are parts of the headers result of some text preprocessing or generation?
I've maintained Visual Studio's implementation of the C++ Standard Library for 7 years (VC's STL was written by and licensed from P.J. Plauger of Dinkumware back in the mid-90s, and I work with PJP to pick up new features and maintenance bugfixes), and I can tell you that I do all of my editing "by hand" in a plain text editor. None of the STL's headers or sources are automatically generated (although Dinkumware's master sources, which I have never seen, go through automated filtering in order to produce customized drops for Microsoft), and the stuff that's checked into source control is shipped directly to users without any further modification (now, that is; previously we ran them through a filtering step that caused lots of headaches). I am notorious for not using IDEs/autocomplete, although I do use Source Insight to browse the codebase (especially the underlying CRT whose guts I am less familiar with), and I extensively rely on grep. (And of course I use diff tools; my favorite is an internal tool named "odd".) I do engage in very very careful cut-and-paste editing, but for the opposite reason as novices; I do this when I understand the structure of code completely, and I wish to exactly replicate parts of it without accidentally leaving things out. (For example, different containers need very similar machinery to deal with allocators; it should probably be centralized, but in the meantime when I need to fix basic_string I'll verify that vector is correct and then copy its machinery.) I've generated code perhaps twice - once when stamping out the C++14 transparent operator functors that I designed (plus<>, multiplies<>, greater<>, etc. are highly repetitive), and again when implementing/proposing variable templates for type traits (recently voted into the Library Fundamentals Technical Specification, probably destined for C++17). IIRC, I wrote an actual program for the operator functors, while I used sed for the variable templates. The plain text editor that I use (Metapad) has search-and-replace capabilities that are quite useful although weaker than outright regexes; I need stronger tools if I want to replicate chunks of text (e.g. is_same_v = is_same< T >::value).
How do STL maintainers remember all this stuff? It's a full time job. And of course, we're constantly consulting the Standard/Working Paper for the required interfaces and behavior of code. (I recently discovered that I can, with great difficulty, enumerate all 50 US states from memory, but I would surely be unable to enumerate all STL algorithms from memory. However, I have memorized the longest name, as a useless bit of trivia. :->)
The looks of it are designed to be weird in some sense. The standard library and the code in there needs to avoid conflicts with names used in user programs, including macros and there are almost no restrictions as to what can be in a user program.
They are most probably hand written, and as others have mentioned, if you spend some time looking at them you will figure out what the coding conventions are, how variables are named and so on. One of the few restrictions include that user code cannot use identifiers starting with _ followed by a capital letter or __ (two consecutive underscores), so you will find many names in the standard headers that look like _M_xxx or __yyy and it might surprise at first, but after some time you just ignore the prefix...
I wish to send some components to my customers. The reasons I want to deliver source code are:
1) My class is templatized. Customer might use any template argument, so I can't pre-compile and send .o file.
2) The customer might use different compiler versions for gcc than mine. So I want him to do compilation at his end.
Now, I can't reveal my source code for obvious reasons. The max I can do is to reveal the .h file. Any ideas how I may achieve this. I am thinking about some hooks in gcc that supports decryption before compilation, etc. Is this possible?
In short, I want him to be able to compile this code without being able to peek inside.
Contract = good, obfuscation = ungood.
That said, you can always do a kind of PIMPL idiom to serve your customer with binaries and just templated wrappers in the header(s). The idea is then to use an "untyped" separately compiled implementation, where the templated wrapper just provides type safety for client code. That's how one often did things before compilers started to understand how to optimize templates, that is, to avoid machine-code level code bloat, but it only provides some measure of protection about trivial copy-and-paste theft, not any protection against someone willing to delve into the machine code.
But perhaps the effort is then greater than just reinventing your functionality?
Just adding some terminology to Alf's answer: The Thin template idiom is what you might look at. It basically simulates the functionality of a generic. Don't get confused by the wikipedia article which pops up in google, you don't have to use void*...
This, of course, does not guarantee binary compatibility. As usual with 'native' c++, you either compile the component for customers platform yourself and deploy the binary, or give them your code... The difference to the pure generic component code is that you can do the former at all.
use some c++ obfuscators may be help?: http://www.semdesigns.com/products/obfuscators/CppObfuscationExample.html or Magle It
First, if you're going to provide the source code, then you have to provide the source code. Sure, you could encrypt it, but even if GCC had a "decrypt before compile" option, it would need to decrypt the code, and if GCC can decrypt the code, so can your customer.
What you're asking is impossible. (If you find a way to do it, I believe the movie industry might have a multi-million contract for you. They currently have to resort to expensive custom hardware to prevent people from ripping content, and that only works to a limited degree)
As for your "obvious reasons" why you don't want to provide the source code, I don't see why they're obvious. What would happen if you provided the source code?
You have two options:
provide the source code in its entirety, or
compile everything that can be precompiled into a (static or dynamic) library, and provide your customer with that, plus the header files.
what about pimpls?
1) My class is templatized. Customer might use any template argument, so I can't pre-compile and send .o file.
2) The customer might use different compiler versions for gcc than mine. So I want him to do compilation at his end.
Now, I can't reveal my source code for obvious reasons. The max I can do is to reveal the .h file. Any ideas how I may achieve this. I am thinking about some hooks in gcc that supports decryption before compilation, etc. Is this possible?
In short, I want him to be able to compile this code without being able to peek inside.
Consideration 2) above encompasses A) ABI differences such that the same code compiled with different compiler versions/vendors on the same platform is incompatible, as well as B) the differences in system libraries, kernel versions etc. that the code might be dependent on. The only general solution is to compile on the specific platforms. Either you do it for all platforms, or you give them all the source code and they do it. That's not just the headers and template implementation, that's your out-of-line functions too. You might mitigate A) a little by building a wall of more interoperable extern "C" functions, but you're basically stuck when it comes to B).
So, can you decrypt during compilation? Only if you ship your own hacked GCC binaries to them, built for their specific system, which is probably more hassle than providing different builds of your own libraries (though it may address the template/header exposure issue).
Alternatively, you could employ source code obfuscation techniques. This is probably - practically - as good as it gets. I don't know what tools are out there, but it's an approach that people have pursued for decades (though I'm yet to hear anyone recommend it), so there's sure to be some mature tools.
Re templated code - other people have suggested a templated front end to a C-style generic implementation shipped as a precompiled object. That may or may not be practical (clearly risks performance degradation, and you have to capture the set of type-specific operations you want - e.g. by instantiating a type-specific class derived from an abstract operations base class) but anyway the precompiled object still runs afoul of B).
One other thought... clients might take your source code, but are unlikely to understand it as well as you. Even if they build more systems dependent on their version of it, in a way they're getting more locked in, and may have more need for your services in future. And, if you see they've not played fair, you charge them for it appropriately when the time comes.
It seems with gcc 4.5 comes the support for plugins. So you can provide your own .so which would be, for instance, called before compilation stage starts. So you can have all kinds of tricks(decryption of source file) in there, neatly hidden. This would also be portable solution as no change is made to g++ per se.
This is exactly what I was looking for. You can read more here:
http://www.codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog/2010/05/03/parsing-cxx-with-gcc-plugin-part-1/
I've got a largeish codebase that's been around for a while and I'm trying to tidy it up a bit by refactoring it. One thing I'd like to do is find all the headers where I could forward declare members, instead of including the entire header file.
This is a fairly labour intensive process and I'm looking for a tool that could help me figure out which headers have members that could be forward declared.
Is there a compiler setting that could emit a warning or suggestion that the following code could use a forward declaration? I'm using the following compilers icc, gcc, sun studio and HP's aCC
Is there a standalone tool that could do the same job?
#include "Foo.h"
...//more includes
class Bar {
.......
private:
Foo* m_foo;
};
Anything involving the precise analysis of C++ requires essentially an entire C++ front end somewhere (otherwise you won't get answers, or they'll be wrong, and that works badly when you have "largish" applications). There aren't many practical answers available here.
Already mentioned is GCCXML is a GCC-derived package, so it has the requisite C++ front end. It produces XML, thus it will produce a LOT of output that you'll have to read back in to form "the in memory data structure" suggested in another answer. Its unfortunate that GCCXML builds that memory data structure already, then exports it as XML, and forces you to build it again. Of course, you could just use GCC, which builds the in memory data structure, but then you have to hack GCC to be what you want, and it really, really wants to be a compiler. That means you'll have a fight on your hands to bend it to your will (and explains why GCCXML exists: most people don't want that fight).
Not mentioned is the Edison Design Group C++ (EDG) front end, which builds that in memory data structure directly. It is a front end; you'll have to do all the analysis stuff yourself but your task may be simple enough so that isn't hard.
The last solution I know is mine: C++ FrontEnd for DMS. DMS is foundation for building program analysis, and its C++ FrontEnd is a complete Front end for C++ (e.g., does everything the GCC and Edison front ends do: parsing, tree building, name/type resolution). And you'll have to code your special analysis much the way you would for GCCXML and EDG by walking over the "in memory" datastructures produced by DMS.
What is really different is that DMS could then be used to actually modify your source code by updating those in memory data structures, and regenerate compilable code from those memory structures, including the original comments.
I'm not sure you'll find anything that does this out-of-the box, but one option would be to write a script using Python and the pygccxml package that could do some of this analysis for you.
Basically you'd use pygccxml to build an in-memory graph of your source code, then use it to query your classes and functions to find out what they actually need to include to function.
So for example you could ask each class, give me the members that are pointer types: then for each of those pointer types you could work out if a real instance (non pointer) of the class was used in the interface, and if not you could mark it as a candidate for forward declaration.
The downside is that the script would take some time to get right so the cost might outweigh the benefits but it would be an interesting exercise at least. You could post your code to Github if you got something that worked and maybe others would find it useful.
What you could do is call gcc with -MM. This will produce dependency files that Make can read. Instead of having make use them, you could parse them (with perl, or something) to determine which includes are needed and which could be replaced with forward declarations.
When you get a third-party library (c, c++), open-source (LGPL say), that does not have good documentation, what is the best way to go about understanding it to be able to integrate into your application?
The library usually has some example programs and I end up walking through the code using gdb. Any other suggestions/best-practicies?
For an example, I just picked one from sourceforge.net, but it's just a broad engineering/programming question:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/aftp/
I frequently use a couple of tools to help me with this:
GNU Global. It generates cross-referencing databases and can produce hyperlinked HTML from source code. Clicking function calls will take you to their definitions, and you can see lists of all references to a function. Only works for C and perhaps C++.
Doxygen. It generates documentation from Javadoc-style comments. If you tell it to generate documentation for undocumented methods, it will give you nice summaries. It can also produce hyperlinked source code listings (and can link into the listings provided by htags).
These two tools, along with just reading code in Emacs and doing some searches with recursive grep, are how I do most of my source reverse-engineering.
One of the better ways to understand it is to attempt to document it yourself. By going and trying to document it yourself, it forces you to really dive in and test and test and test and make sure you know what each statement is doing at what times. Then you can really start to understand what the previous developer may have been thinking (or not thinking for that matter).
Great question. I think that this should be addressed thoroughly, so I'm going to try to make my answer as thorough as possible.
One thing that I do when approaching large projects that I've either inherited or contributing to is automatically generate their sources, UML diagrams, and anything that can ease the various amounts of A.D.D. encountered when learning a new project:)
I believe someone here already mentioned Doxygen, that's a great tool! You should look into it and write a small bash script that will automatically generate sources for the application you're developing in some tree structure you've setup.
One thing that I've haven't seen people mention is BOUML! It's fantastic and free! It automatically generates reverse UML diagrams from existing sources and it supports a variety of languages. I use this as a way to really capture the big picture of what's going on in terms of architecture and design before I start reading code.
If you've got the money to spare, look into Understand for %language-here%. It's absolutely great and has helped me in many ways when inheriting legacy code.
EDIT:
Try out ack (betterthangrep.com), it is a pretty convenient script for searching source trees:)
Familiarize yourself with the information available in the headers. The functions you call will be declared there. Then try to identify the valid arguments and pre-/post-conditions of the functions, as those are your primary guidance (even if they are not documented!). The example programs are your next bet.
If you have code completion/intellisense I like opening up the library and going '.' or 'namespace::' and seeing what comes up. I always find it helpful, you can navigate through the objects/namespaces and see what functionality they have. This is of course assuming its an OOP library with relatively good naming of functions/objects.
There really isn't a silver bullet other than just rolling up your sleeves and digging into the code.
This is where we earn our money.
Three things;
(1) try to run the test or example apps available, set low debug levels, and walk through logs.
(2) use source navigator tool / cscope ( available both on windows and linux) and browse the code to understand the flow.
(3) also in parallel use gdb to walk into code while running test/example apps.
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 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Many languages, such as Java, C#, do not separate declaration from implementation. C# has a concept of partial class, but implementation and declaration still remain in the same file.
Why doesn't C++ have the same model? Is it more practical to have header files?
I am referring to current and upcoming versions of C++ standard.
Backwards Compatibility - Header files are not eliminated because it would break Backwards Compatibility.
Header files allow for independent compilation. You don't need to access or even have the implementation files to compile a file. This can make for easier distributed builds.
This also allows SDKs to be done a little easier. You can provide just the headers and some libraries. There are, of course, ways around this which other languages use.
Even Bjarne Stroustrup has called header files a kludge.
But without a standard binary format which includes the necessary metadata (like Java class files, or .Net PE files) I don't see any way to implement the feature. A stripped ELF or a.out binary doesn't have much of the information you would need to extract. And I don't think that the information is ever stored in Windows XCOFF files.
I routinely flip between C# and C++, and the lack of header files in C# is one of my biggest pet peeves. I can look at a header file and learn all I need to know about a class - what it's member functions are called, their calling syntax, etc - without having to wade through pages of the code that implements the class.
And yes, I know about partial classes and #regions, but it's not the same. Partial classes actually make the problem worse, because a class definition is spread across several files. As far as #regions go, they never seem to be expanded in the manner I'd like for what I'm doing at the moment, so I have to spend time expanding those little plus's until I get the view right.
Perhaps if Visual Studio's intellisense worked better for C++, I wouldn't have a compelling reason to have to refer to .h files so often, but even in VS2008, C++'s intellisense can't touch C#'s
C was made to make writing a compiler easily. It does a LOT of stuff based on that one principle. Pointers only exist to make writing a compiler easier, as do header files. Many of the things carried over to C++ are based on compatibility with these features implemented to make compiler writing easier.
It's a good idea actually. When C was created, C and Unix were kind of a pair. C ported Unix, Unix ran C. In this way, C and Unix could quickly spread from platform to platform whereas an OS based on assembly had to be completely re-written to be ported.
The concept of specifying an interface in one file and the implementation in another isn't a bad idea at all, but that's not what C header files are. They are simply a way to limit the number of passes a compiler has to make through your source code and allow some limited abstraction of the contract between files so they can communicate.
These items, pointers, header files, etc... don't really offer any advantage over another system. By putting more effort into the compiler, you can compile a reference object as easily as a pointer to the exact same object code. This is what C++ does now.
C is a great, simple language. It had a very limited feature set, and you could write a compiler without much effort. Porting it is generally trivial! I'm not trying to say it's a bad language or anything, it's just that C's primary goals when it was created may leave remnants in the language that are more or less unnecessary now, but are going to be kept around for compatibility.
It seems like some people don't really believe that C was written to port Unix, so here: (from)
The first version of UNIX was written
in assembler language, but Thompson's
intention was that it would be written
in a high-level language.
Thompson first tried in 1971 to use
Fortran on the PDP-7, but gave up
after the first day. Then he wrote a
very simple language he called B,
which he got going on the PDP-7. It
worked, but there were problems.
First, because the implementation was
interpreted, it was always going to be
slow. Second, the basic notions of B,
which was based on the word-oriented
BCPL, just were not right for a
byte-oriented machine like the new
PDP-11.
Ritchie used the PDP-11 to add types
to B, which for a while was called NB
for "New B," and then he started to
write a compiler for it. "So that the
first phase of C was really these two
phases in short succession of, first,
some language changes from B, really,
adding the type structure without too
much change in the syntax; and doing
the compiler," Ritchie said.
"The second phase was slower," he said
of rewriting UNIX in C. Thompson
started in the summer of 1972 but had
two problems: figuring out how to run
the basic co-routines, that is, how to
switch control from one process to
another; and the difficulty in getting
the proper data structure, since the
original version of C did not have
structures.
"The combination of the things caused
Ken to give up over the summer,"
Ritchie said. "Over the year, I added
structures and probably made the
compiler code somewhat better --
better code -- and so over the next
summer, that was when we made the
concerted effort and actually did redo
the whole operating system in C."
Here is a perfect example of what I mean. From the comments:
Pointers only exist to make writing a compiler easier? No. Pointers exist because they're the simplest possible abstraction over the idea of indirection. – Adam Rosenfield (an hour ago)
You are right. In order to implement indirection, pointers are the simplest possible abstraction to implement. In no way are they the simplest possible to comprehend or use. Arrays are much easier.
The problem? To implement arrays as efficiently as pointers you have to pretty much add a HUGE pile of code to your compiler.
There is no reason they couldn't have designed C without pointers, but with code like this:
int i=0;
while(src[++i])
dest[i]=src[i];
it will take a lot of effort (on the compilers part) to factor out the explicit i+src and i+dest additions and make it create the same code that this would make:
while(*(dest++) = *(src++))
;
Factoring out that variable "i" after the fact is HARD. New compilers can do it, but back then it just wasn't possible, and the OS running on that crappy hardware needed little optimizations like that.
Now few systems need that kind of optimization (I work on one of the slowest platforms around--cable set-top boxes, and most of our stuff is in Java) and in the rare case where you might need it, the new C compilers should be smart enough to make that kind of conversion on its own.
In The Design and Evolution of C++, Stroustrup gives out one more reason...
The same header file can have two or more implementation files which can be simultaneously worked-upon by more than one programmer without the need of a source-control system.
This might seem odd these days, but I guess it was an important issue when C++ was invented.
If you want C++ without header files then I have good news for you.
It already exists and is called D (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html)
Technically D seems to be a lot nicer than C++ but it is just not mainstream enough for use in many applications at the moment.
One of C++'s goals is to be a superset of C, and it's difficult for it to do so if it cannot support header files. And, by extension, if you wish to excise header files you may as well consider excising CPP (the pre-processor, not plus-plus) altogether; both C# and Java do not specify macro pre-processors with their standards (but it should be noted in some cases they can be and even are used even with these languages).
As C++ is designed right now, you need prototypes -- just as in C -- to statically check any compiled code that references external functions and classes. Without header files, you would have to type out these class definitions and function declarations prior to using them. For C++ not to use header files, you'd have to add a feature in the language that would support something like Java's import keyword. That'd be a major addition, and change; to answer your question of if it'd be practical: I don't think so--not at all.
Many people are aware of shortcomings of header files and there are ideas to introduce more powerful module system to C++.
You might want to take a look at Modules in C++ (Revision 5) by Daveed Vandevoorde.
Well, C++ per se shouldn't eliminate header files because of backwards compatibility. However, I do think they're a silly idea in general. If you want to distribute a closed-source lib, this information can be extracted automatically. If you want to understand how to use a class w/o looking at the implementation, that's what documentation generators are for, and they do a heck of a lot better a job.
There is value in defining the class interface in a separate component to the implementation file.
It can be done with interfaces, but if you go down that road, then you are implicitly saying that classes are deficient in terms of separating implementation from contract.
Modula 2 had the right idea, definition modules and implementation modules. http://www.modula2.org/reference/modules.php
Java/C#'s answer is an implicit implementation of the same (albeit object-oriented.)
Header files are a kludge, because header files express implementation detail (such as private variables.)
In moving over to Java and C#, I find that if a language requires IDE support for development (such that public class interfaces are navigable in class browsers), then this is maybe a statement that the code doesn't stand on its own merits as being particularly readable.
I find the mix of interface with implementation detail quite horrendous.
Crucially, the lack of ability to document the public class signature in a concise well-commented file independent of implementation indicates to me that the language design is written for convenience of authorship, rather convenience of maintenance. Well I'm rambling about Java and C# now.
One advantage of this separation is that it is easy to view only the interface, without requiring an advanced editor.
No language exists without header files. It's a myth.
Look at any proprietary library distribution for Java (I have no C# experience to speak of, but I'd expect it's the same). They don't give you the complete source file; they just give you a file with every method's implementation blanked ({} or {return null;} or the like) and everything they can get away with hiding hidden. You can't call that anything but a header.
There is no technical reason, however, why a C or C++ compiler could count everything in an appropriately-marked file as extern unless that file is being compiled directly. However, the costs for compilation would be immense because neither C nor C++ is fast to parse, and that's a very important consideration. Any more complex method of melding headers and source would quickly encounter technical issues like the need for the compiler to know an object's layout.
If you want the reason why this will never happen: it would break pretty much all existing C++ software. If you look at some of the C++ committee design documentation, they looked at various alternatives to see how much code it would break.
It would be far easier to change the switch statement into something halfway intelligent. That would break only a little code. It's still not going to happen.
EDITED FOR NEW IDEA:
The difference between C++ and Java that makes C++ header files necessary is that C++ objects are not necessarily pointers. In Java, all class instances are referred to by pointer, although it doesn't look that way. C++ has objects allocated on the heap and the stack. This means C++ needs a way of knowing how big an object will be, and where the data members are in memory.
Header files are an integral part of the language. Without header files, all static libraries, dynamic libraries, pretty much any pre-compiled library becomes useless. Header files also make it easier to document everything, and make it possible to look over a library/file's API without going over every single bit of code.
They also make it easier to organize your program. Yes, you have to be constantly switching from source to header, but they also allow you define internal and private APIs inside the implementations. For example:
MySource.h:
extern int my_library_entry_point(int api_to_use, ...);
MySource.c:
int private_function_that_CANNOT_be_public();
int my_library_entry_point(int api_to_use, ...){
// [...] Do stuff
}
int private_function_that_CANNOT_be_public() {
}
If you #include <MySource.h>, then you get my_library_entry_point.
If you #include <MySource.c>, then you also get private_function_that_CANNOT_be_public.
You see how that could be a very bad thing if you had a function to get a list of passwords, or a function which implemented your encryption algorithm, or a function that would expose the internals of an OS, or a function that overrode privileges, etc.
Oh Yes!
After coding in Java and C# it's really annoying to have 2 files for every classes. So I was thinking how can I merge them without breaking existing code.
In fact, it's really easy. Just put the definition (implementation) inside an #ifdef section and add a define on the compiler command line to compile that file. That's it.
Here is an example:
/* File ClassA.cpp */
#ifndef _ClassA_
#define _ClassA_
#include "ClassB.cpp"
#include "InterfaceC.cpp"
class ClassA : public InterfaceC
{
public:
ClassA(void);
virtual ~ClassA(void);
virtual void methodC();
private:
ClassB b;
};
#endif
#ifdef compiling_ClassA
ClassA::ClassA(void)
{
}
ClassA::~ClassA(void)
{
}
void ClassA::methodC()
{
}
#endif
On the command line, compile that file with
-D compiling_ClassA
The other files that need to include ClassA can just do
#include "ClassA.cpp"
Of course the addition of the define on the command line can easily be added with a macro expansion (Visual Studio compiler) or with an automatic variables (gnu make) and using the same nomenclature for the define name.
Still I don't get the point of some statements. Separation of API and implementation is a very good thing, but header files are not API. There are private fields there. If you add or remove private field you change implementation and not API.