Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Meta-C question about header order |
| Date | 2014-04-13 16:26 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <bquhvdFb55dU5@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <bqtj0hF60hpU1@mid.individual.net> <CNh2v.39400$Wy2.31318@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com> <20140412201155.452@kylheku.com> |
Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2014-04-12, Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >> On 4/12/14, 3:37 PM, Jens Schweikhardt wrote: >>> 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). >>> >> >> A rule that says that a header can NOT include other headers, even if it >> depends on the contents of that header is, in my mind, totally broken. > > I used to think so fresh out of school. > > But actually, this style is superior because leads to much cleaner code > organization and faster compilation. It keeps everything "tight". The faster compilation argument is a non-starter these days. > I chose this approach in the TXR project, and am very pleased with it. > I understand now why some people recommend it. > > The compiler diagnostics are simpler. None of this: > > "Syntax error in line 32 of X > included from line 42 of Y, > included from line 15 of Z ..." > > Also, the dependencies are easy to understand. If you look at the > list of #include directives at the top of a .c file, those are > the files which, if they are touched, will trigger a re-compile > of this file. And no others! And? > It's easy to generate a dependency makefile. If we have a foo.c > with these contents: > > #include <stdio.h> > #include "a.h" > #include "b.h" > #include "foo.h" > > then the dependency rule is precisely this: > > foo.o: foo.c a.h b.h foo.h A decent make will do this for you. > Done! At a glance we know all the dependencies. Our regular confrontation with > these dependencies in every source file prevents us from screwing up the > program with a spaghetti of creeping dependencies. > >> It totally breaks the concept of encapsulation. > > Not any more than a hammer which doesn't dispense its own nails and wooden > planks. > > Anyway, there is no encapsulation to speak of; we are dealing with a primitive > text file inclusion mechanism which doesn't even come close to solving the > modularity problem. So would you rather include and maintain all of the headers (and accompanying platform specific conditional include spaghetti) a particular library uses in every source file, or just include the library's public header? All of that crud is the encapsulation referred to here. > The fact that you have a Makefile (or whatever) which has to list object files > breaks "encapsulation". Not when bringing in a library. -- Ian Collins
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