I'm working on a class assignment that started small, so I had it all in one file. Now it's gotten bigger and I'm trying to separately compile main, functions, and classes (so all the classes are together in one .h and one .cpp) I have one class B, which is the parent of a lot of others and comes first in the file. One of its data members isn't working now that I'm using separate compilation, which is causing dozens of errors.
In .h
class A;
class B {
public:
B (){}
A* myptr;
void whatever();
vector<A*> myAs; //this one is the problem
};
In .cpp
void B::whatever() {
vector<A*> newvector; //no problem!
myptr = &something; //no problem!
for (vector<A*>::iterator iter = myAs.begin(); iter != myAs.end(); ++iter) {
//error!
}
}
I get errors: either "myAs was not declared in this scope" or "class B has no member myAs."
I've included < vector >, forward-declared class A as you see above, and I definitely remembered to include the .h at the top of the .cpp! Is there something about vectors or classes and separate compilation that I don't understand? This is in Xcode, BTW.
It's not just vector. It's std::vector because it is within the namespace called std. That's why the compiler moans. It doesn't know what vector<A*> means. Say std::vector<A*> instead.
Do not add using namespace std; now into the header because of this. It may be OK for the assignment to put it into the .cpp file to save typing if you wish. But it's a really bad idea to put such a line into a header: Because you don't know which files will need your header in future. The situation can quickly get out of hand as the amount of files including your header grows with time. The header should therefor include only the names and headers that it really needs so that it causes as little name conflicts as possible - whereas that using namespace std; line would make all names of std visible directly.
Related
I am developing a project in which I have a vendor library, say vendor.h, for the specific Arduino-compatible board I'm using which defines class HTTPClient that conflicts with an Arduino system library, HTTPClient.h, which also defines class HTTPClient.
These two classes are unrelated other than having the same name, and the vendor implementation of an HTTP client is far less capable than the Arduino system library's implementation, so I'd prefer to use the latter. But I can't omit including the former, because I need quite a bit from the vendor.h. Essentially, I have the problem posed here, but with classes rather than functions. I have the full code of both, but given that one is a system library and the other is a vendor library, I'm reluctant to fork and edit either, as that adds lots of merging work down the road if either of them are updated, so my preference would be to find a tidy solution that doesn't edit either header.
I've tried a variety of solutions posted in other SO questions:
I do not want to leave out either header, as I need vendor.h for quite a few things and need the capabilities of HTTPClient.h's client implementation
Proper namespaces in the headers would solve the problem, I would prefer to avoid editing either header
I tried wrapping the #include <HTTPClient.h> in a namespace in my main.cpp, but that caused linking errors, as it's not a header-only library, so the header & cpp weren't in the same namespace
I tried a simple wrapper as proposed for the function in the above linked SO question in which the header contained just a forward declaration of my wrapper class & the associated cpp contained the actual class definition. This gave a compiler error of error: aggregate 'HTTP::Client client' has incomplete type and cannot be defined (Code sample of this attempt below)
main.cpp:
#include <vendor.h>
#include "httpclientwrapper.h"
HTTP::Client client;
httpclientwrapper.h:
#ifndef INC_HTTPCLIENTWRAPPER_H
#define INC_HTTPCLIENTWRAPPER_H
namespace HTTP {
class Client;
}
#endif
httpclientwrapper.cpp:
#include "httpclientwrapper.h"
#include <HTTPClient.h>
namespace HTTP {
class Client : public ::HTTPClient {};
}
In that example, I can't inherit from HTTPClient in a class definition in my header, as that will reintroduce the duplicate class name to the global namespace in my main program (hence the perhaps misguided attempt to see if a forward declaration would do the trick). I suspect that I can resolve the issue by completely duplicating the class definition of HTTPClient in my wrapper class above rather than trying to use inheritance. I would then add member definitions to my wrapper cpp which pass the call to HTTPClient's members. Before I go through the trouble of rewriting (or more likely, copy/pasting) the entire HTTPClient definition from HTTPClient.h into my own wrapper, I was wondering if there was a better or more proper way to resolve the conflict?
Thanks for you help!
As a solution was never proposed, I'm posting an answer that summarizes my research and my ultimate resolution. Mostly, I encourage the use of namespaces, because proper uses of namespaces would have eliminated the conflict. However, Arduino environments try to keep things simple to lower the barrier of entry, eschewing "complicated" features of C++, so more advanced use cases will likely continue to run into issues like this. From other SO answers and forum posts (cited where I could), here are some methods for avoiding name conflicts like this:
If you can edit the source
Edit the source code to remove the conflict or add a namespace to one of both libraries. If this is an open source library, submit a pull request. This is the cleanest solution. However, if you can't push your changes back upstream (such as when one is a system library for some hardware), you may end up with merge issues down the road when the maintainer/developer updates the libraries.
If you can't edit the source
Credit for part of this: How to avoid variable/function conflicts from two libraries in C++
For libraries that are header only libraries (or all functions are inline)
(ie, they have only a .h file without a .o or .cpp)
Include the library inside a namespace. In most code, this is frowned upon as poor form, but if you're already in a situation where you are trying to cope with a library that doesn't contain itself nicely, it's a clean and simple way to contain the code in a namespace and avoid name conflicts.
main.cpp
namespace foo {
#include library.h
}
int main() {
foo::bar(1);
}
For libraries with functions
The above method will fail to link at compile time, because the declarations in the header will be inside the namespace, but the definitions of those functions are not.
Instead, create a wrapper header and implementation file. In the header, declare your namespace and functions you wish to use, but do not import the original library. In the implementation file, import your library, and use the functions inside your new namespaced functions. That way, the one conflicting library is not imported into the same place as the other.
wrapper.h
namespace foo {
int bar(int a);
}
wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "library.h"
namespace foo {
int bar(int a) {
return ::bar(a);
}
}
main.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
int main() {
foo::bar(1);
}
You could also, for the sake of consistency, wrap both libraries so they're each in their own namespace. This method does mean that you will have to put in the effort to write a wrapper for every function you plan to use. This gets more complicated, however, when you need to use classes from the library (see below).
For libraries with classes
This is an extension of the wrapper function model from above, but you will need to put in more work, and there are a few more drawbacks. You can't write a class that inherits from the library's class, as that would require importing the original library in your wrapper header prior to defining your class, so you must write a complete wrapper class. You also cannot have a private member of your class of the type from the original class that you can delegate calls to for the same reason. The attempt at using a forward declaration I described in my question also did not work, as the header file needs a complete declaration of the class to compile. This left me the below implementation, which only works in the cases of a singleton (which was my use case anyway).
The wrapper header file should almost completely duplicate the public interface of the class you want to use.
wrapper.h
namespace foo {
Class Bar() {
public:
void f(int a);
bool g(char* b, int c, bool d);
char* h();
};
}
The wrapper implementation file then creates an instance and passes the calls along.
wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "library.h"
namespace foo {
::Bar obj;
void Bar::f(int a) {
return obj.f(a);
}
bool Bar::g(char* b, int c, bool d) {
return obj.g(b, c, d);
}
char* Bar::h() {
return obj.h();
}
}
The main file will interact with only a single instance of the original class, no matter how many times your wrapper class in instantiated.
main.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
int main() {
foo::Bar obj;
obj.f(1);
obj.g("hello",5,true);
obj.h();
}
Overall, this strikes me as a flawed solution. To fully wrap this class, I think the this could be modified to add a factory class that would be fully contained inside the wrapper implementation file. This class would instantiate the original library class every time your wrapper class is instantiated, and then track these instances. In this way, your wrapper class could keep an index to its associated instance in the factory and bypass the need to have that instance as its own private member. This seemed like a significant amount of work, and I did not attempt to do so, but would look something like the code below. (This probably needs some polish and a real look at its memory usage!)
The wrapper header file adds a constructor & private member to store an instance id
wrapper.h
namespace foo {
Class Bar() {
public:
Bar();
void f(int a);
bool g(char* b, int c, bool d);
char* h();
private:
unsigned int instance;
};
}
The wrapper implementation file then adds a factory class to manage instances of the original library's class
wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "library.h"
namespace foo {
class BarFactory {
public:
static unsigned int new() {
instances[count] = new ::Bar();
return count++;
}
static ::Bar* get(unsigned int i) {
return instances[i];
}
private:
BarFactory();
::Bar* instances[MAX_COUNT]
int count;
};
void Bar::Bar() {
instance = BarFactory.new();
}
void Bar::f(int a) {
return BarFactory.get(i)->f(a);
}
bool Bar::g(char* b, int c, bool d) {
return BarFactory.get(i)->g(b, c, d);
}
char* Bar::h() {
return BarFactory.get(i)->h();
}
}
The main file remains unchanged
main.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
int main() {
foo::bar obj;
obj.f(1);
obj.g("hello",5,true);
obj.h();
}
If all of this seems like a lot of work, then you're thinking the same thing I did. I implemented the basic class wrapper, and realized it wasn't going to work for my use case. And given the hardware limitations of the Arduino, I ultimately decided that rather than add more code to be able to use the HTTPClient implementation in either library, I wrote my own HTTP implementation library in the end, and so used none of the above and saved several hundred kilobytes of memory. But I wanted to share here in case somebody else was looking to answer the same question!
Apologies if you have seen this question before however it has yet to be answered, essentially in my code I have two structs, defined in separate headers and used globally throughout the project. I simply wish to use both structs (which again, are defined in two separate headers) in other cpp files than just the ones that the header file belongs to.
Here is some sample code which I have tested:
class1.h
#include "class2.h"
#include <vector>
#include <string>
struct trans1{
string name;
};
class class1 {
private:
vector <trans2> t2;
public:
class1();
};
class2.h
#include "class1.h"
#include <vector>
#include <string>
struct trans2{
string type;
};
class class2{
private:
vector <trans1> t1;
public:
class2();
};
errorlog:
In file included from class1.h:3:0,
from class1.cpp:1:
class2.h:21:13: error: 'trans1' was not declared in this scope
vector <trans1> t1;
^
class2.h:21:19: error: template argument 1 is invalid
vector <trans1> t1;
^
class2.h:21:19: error: template argument 2 is invalid
I understand that this is ridiculous code in a real world application however this is the simplest way I could demonstrate.
It is worth noting that if I simply comment out the declaration of vector t1 or t2 under 'private:' the code compiles without fail. It is just the fact I am using a second struct.
Any help anyone? Thanks.
Simply forward-declare the classes that will be used. Put all implementation code into a cpp file, not inline in the header.
Make the vector private. This way no file that includes the header can force code generation against an incomplete class.
you can try to forward declare trans1 in class2.h and trans2 in class1.h like this:
class2.h :
// includes
struct trans1;
// rest of your code
the same thing (but with trans2) in class1.h
Don't forget to add Include guards in your code!
edit: and yes, you need to change your vectors to store pointers, otherwise it won't link
You need to put the "trans" structs in their own header file(s) and include them in your class header files.
You could forward declare them, but this would require changing your vector to use pointers. (In that case I would recommend std::vector<std::unique_ptr<trans>>). This could be appropriate if your structs are big and complex.
The main advantage of the forward-declaration approach is to reduce compile times. However if the structs are really so simple as in your example, I wouldn't bother with the extra overhead of using pointers here.
If You were to do this in single .cpp file, the solution would be trivial:
struct trans1 { ... };
struct trans2 { ... };
class class1 { ... };
class class2 { .... };
Now you just need to rearrange the code to get this result in every translation unit. (the order of classes/structs in the file is important)
OK folks. I have fixed the error by moving the variable definition, but I do not understand why there is a problem.
Simplified Background: I have an object and I want to track all instances of that object in a list, so I simply created a List<> static member of the class. Below was a simple representation that allowed me to play with it. If I have the line marked as "this line" in the static library. I get a run time error. The object is defined in a header file and is the same header file in both places. If I move "this line" to the code in my final application and it works.... Why? I just don't understand why it is different.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <list>
using namespace std;
class someobject
{
public:
someobject()
{
// do some stuff.
theStaticList.push_back(this);
}
void func()
{
printf("Made it!!\n");
}
static list<someobject*> theStaticList;
};
list<someobject*> someobject::theStaticList; //*** This line
someobject global;
int main()
{
someobject initial;
initial.func();
global.func();
list<someobject*>::iterator iter;
printf("\n\nLoop the Static List\n");
for (iter = someobject::theStaticList.begin(); iter != someobject::theStaticList.end (); iter++)
(*iter)->func();
return 0;
}
If you put that line in a header file, then include the header into two or more source files, you're defining the list object in each source file where the header gets included.
This violates the one definition rule, so the linker will quite rightly give you an error when you do it.
You want to define the object in one (and only one) source file. For a library, that should be some object file in the library, not the user's source file though (at least as a general rule).
I am programming on linux using g++ and I often encounter the problem that I need to use a class or data type in a header file which I define later, either at a later point in the header or in another header file.
For instance look at this header file:
class example
{
mydatatype blabla;
};
struct mydatatype
{
int blablainteger;
char blablachar;
};
This will give error because mydatatype is used before its defined
so usually I change it like this:
struct mydatatype; // <-- class prototype
class example
{
mydatatype *blabla; // <-- now a pointer to the data type
// I will allocate the data during runtime with the new operator
};
struct mydatatype
{
int blablainteger;
char blablachar;
};
Now it works. I could often just put the definition above, or include the header which is needed, but I don't want to include headers in a header or juggle with the definition order, it always gets messy.
The solution I showed usually works, but now I have encountered a new phenomenon. This time the datatype is not a class but a typedef, I cant use prototypes for a typedef and I don't want to use the actual datatype which the typedef incorporates.. it's messy too.
Is there any solution to this?
Firstly, the solution you've thought of (prototype and pointer), is unneeded, and slower than just implementing it without the pointer.
The "proper" solution for this, would be creating seperate headers for each type, and then include them in your other header. That way it will always be defined! You can even make them so that they include eachother.
However, if you've ever opened a .h file provided by g++, you've most likely seen this at the start of the header:
#ifndef SOMETHING_H
#define SOMETHING_H
// Code
#endif /* SOMETHING_H */
This is to solve the issue of types redefining themselves.
If they weren't there, and you included the header file multiple times, the types would be redefined, and an error would be thrown. This makes it so that the types are always present, but never included twice.
I hope that helps!
Place each class/type in it's own header file, and then include the relevant header file in other headers where you need it. Use an inclusion guard in each header e.g.:
// SomeHeaderFile.h
#ifndef SOME_HEADER_FILE_H
#define SOME_HEADER_FILE_H
// code
#endif
I disagree that this is messy - it allows you have an organised structure to you project, it allows each class to operate independently of others and without worrying about order, and it's a good idea to place each class in it's own file anyway.
You could just define the class inside the other class like
template<class T>
class vertex {
private:
class edge {
public:
vertex<T> *to;
double weight;
edge() {
weight = INFINITY;
to = NULL;
};
} *paths;
T data;
unsigned nof_paths;
public:
vertex(T val) {
data = val;
paths = NULL;
nof_paths = 0;
}
void addPathTo(vertex<T>*&);
edge* getAllPaths() {
return paths;
};
};
Obviously this works for small classes... if your class is ENORMOUS you'll be better using separate header files like the other guys said.
This question already has answers here:
Is it possible to avoid repeating the class name in the implementation file?
(8 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
If in C++ I have a class longUnderstandableName. For that class I have a header file containing its method declaration. In the source file for the class, I have to write longUnderstandableName::MethodA, longUnderstandableName::MethodB and so on, everywhere.
Can I somehow make use of namespaces or something else so I can just write MethodA and MethodB, in the class source file, and only there?
typedef longUnderstandableName sn;
Then you can define the methods as
void sn::MethodA() {}
void sn::MethodB() {}
and use them as
sn::MethodA();
sn::MethodB();
This only works if longUnderstandableName is the name of a class. It works even if the class is deeply embedded in some other namespace.
If longUnderstandableName is the name of a namespace, then in the namespace (or source file) where you want to use the methods, you can write
using namespace longUnderstandableName;
and then call methods like
MethodA();
MethodB();
You should be careful not to use a using namespace foo; in header files, because then it pollutes every .cpp file that we #include the header file into, however using a using namespace foo; at the top of a .cpp file is definitely allowed and encouraged.
Inside the methods of the classes, you can use the name without qualification, anyway: just drop the longUnderstandableName:: prefix.
In functions inside the class source file that are not methods, I suggest to introduce file-scope static inline functions, like so:
inline type MethodA(type param){
return longUnderstandableName::MethodA(param);
}
Then you can call MethodA unqualified; due to the inline nature, this likely won't cost any runtime overhead.
I'm not sure I'd recommend it, but you could use a macro like:
#define sn LongUnderstandableName
void sn::MethodA(parameters) { ... }
int sn::MethodB(parameters) { ... }
and so on. One of the bad points of macros is that they don't respect scope, but in this case, the scope you (apparently) want is the source file, which happens to correspond (pretty closely) with the scope of a macro.
Well, yes, once you understand namespaces.
Instead of naming your class MyBonnieLiesOverTheOcean, instead set up the following:
namespace My { namespace Bonnie { namespace LiesOverThe {
class Ocean { ... };
} } }
Now, when defining your methods, you put the same namespaces around the whole file, and you write:
Ocean::SomeMethod() ...
When using the class from outside all the namespaces, it's:
My::Bonnie::LiesOverThe::Ocean
If you need to reference a lot of things from some other namespace in some source file, you can use the 'use' directive to ditch the prefixes.