Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Meta-C question about header order |
| Date | 2014-04-13 14:41 +0000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <20140413072042.507@kylheku.com> (permalink) |
| References | <bqtj0hF60hpU1@mid.individual.net> <lnvbue8e6j.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <bqvbcrFhg97U3@mid.individual.net> |
On 2014-04-13, Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> wrote: > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote > in <lnvbue8e6j.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>: > # Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> writes: > #> hello, world\n > #> > #> consider a small project of 100 C source and 100 header files. > #> The coding rules require that only C files include headers, > #> headers are not allowed to include other headers (not sure if > #> this is 100% the "IWYU - Include What You Use" paradigma). > # > # That strikes me as a stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H suboptimal rule. > > I thought the same some time ago, but was able to leave the > dark side behind me and become a good jedi. > > # You'll have headers that depend on other headers, but without that > # relationship being expressed in the source. > > This is exactly what I want to avoid. I *want* the dependencies to be as > clear as possible. I want to look at the include directives and have > them stare right at me; it helps me realize when there is too much > interdependency emerging and rethink modularization and write smaller > sexier interfaces. Also, here is the thing. Suppose we have a module "g" which uses some data structure and functions defined by "c" which is built up using data types "a" and "b". Module "g" might depend on "a" and "b" not only through "c", but also directly. This is why it is nice in "g.c" to also include the "a.h" and "b.h" headers. It is quite bothersome when "g.c" relies on the fact that, for instance sprintf is declared because it happens that "c.h" contains interface that have FILE * arguments, and includes <stdio.h> for that. Then "g.c" is relying on the side effect that "c.h" provides sprintf, which is brutally ugly, and shows that attempts at automatic modularity through textual preprocessing are a failure. In a language with real modularity, if we depended on a module C which depends on some types in a standard I/O library, we would not inherit that entire standard I/O library through B by accident: the module inheritance mechanism "uses interface C" would not leak through irrelevant things, because C's interface would in turn use only what it needs to, like the FILE * type. With the enlightened inclusion approach, g.c has a right to use sprintf because g.c contains, somewhere at the top, #include <stdio.h>. This satisfies a need in #include "c.h", and an *independent* need in the body of g.c. When I'm reading g.c, I'm not bothered by things like "hey this uses malloc, but it's not including <stdlib.h> anywhere!" (3 minutes later) Oh, it's picking it up via foo.h (which needs stdlib.h for ldiv_t) and foo.h is included by bar.h, which is included by xyzzy.h which g.c includes.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-12 19:37 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-12 13:51 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-13 00:11 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:40 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-13 13:10 +0100
Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-13 06:29 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 14:41 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 10:36 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-12 16:58 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 03:40 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-13 16:26 +1200
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 05:02 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-13 17:21 +1200
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 10:59 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 11:02 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 10:59 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-15 08:26 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-15 15:56 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:34 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-13 15:04 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 10:52 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-13 11:09 +1200
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:47 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-14 08:54 +1200
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 21:37 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-14 09:49 +1200
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-14 19:17 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-15 10:24 +1200
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-16 19:58 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-14 21:45 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order luser- -droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2014-04-12 16:48 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:52 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 01:04 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-13 10:15 +0100
Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-13 04:06 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 12:01 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-13 13:46 +0100
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 13:58 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:29 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-13 08:48 -0500
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 14:25 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 15:02 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-13 21:45 -0500
Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-14 01:16 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-14 10:16 +0100
Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-14 21:33 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-14 16:25 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-14 09:47 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-14 13:29 -0500
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-14 19:31 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-04-14 20:03 -0500
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-15 01:04 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-14 15:15 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-14 22:01 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-15 09:51 +0100
Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-15 06:01 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-15 14:29 +0100
Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-15 10:38 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-15 18:27 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-15 12:45 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order ralph <nt_consulting@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-15 22:02 -0500
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-14 17:44 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-19 01:25 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-19 10:30 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-23 19:47 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-23 15:53 -0400
Re: Meta-C question about header order Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-10 09:25 -0700
Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-23 19:27 +0000
Re: Meta-C question about header order Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-10 09:40 -0700
csiph-web