Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #42892

Re: Meta-C question about header order

From Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Meta-C question about header order
Date 2014-04-13 21:45 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <lifi4h$3fe$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <bqtj0hF60hpU1@mid.individual.net> <include-sort-20140412221141@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <bqvap4Fhg97U1@mid.individual.net> <lie4jc$2r1$1@dont-email.me> <bqvl3kFhg97U8@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/13/2014 9:25 AM, Jens Schweikhardt wrote:
> Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> wrote
> 	in <lie4jc$2r1$1@dont-email.me>:
> ...
> # The problem is the dependencies are still that big, messy, uglier than
> # hell graph doxygen generated.
>
> No, they aren't. The dependencies are directed *acyclic* graphs. Before,
> they contained cycles since with the include guards, a.h can include b.h
> and b.h can include a.h without an actual cycle emerging. But both
> directions must appear as edges in the graph for each header might be
> included in isolation. Cycles are impossible by design under the
> "headers don't include headers" rule.

There is such a thing as a circular dependency. Your rule won't change 
that fact at all. Neither does it change anything about what information 
any part of the code needs to be compiled correctly. All you are 
changing the one responsible for providing that information.

> # That graph now has to be kept in the heads
> # of each and every developer. Really, really, really, ..., ugly!
>
> Why in the heads? If you forget one, the compiler tells you
> "foo_t undeclared" and you include the header with typedef foo_t
> above it. Repeat if necessary. This Turing machine can be proven to halt. :-)

Yes, and the developers need to remember where foo_t is declared. 
They'll have to know this even when they don't care about foo_t because 
it's only an implementation detail five levels deep on the dependency 
graph. By requiring each header to include all the information it needs, 
the developer doesn't even have to know foo_t exists, let alone where to 
find it. (Or, even worse, which one to use.)

> FlexeLint is even smart enough to tell us about "Header file frob.h not
> used in file bar.c", so we can cut down the headers to what's minimally
> needed.
>
> Can you imagine how much code is out there containing tons of unneeded
> #include statements? Who goes to the trouble of analyzing whether some
> header is actually needed? The common pattern is that include directives
> grow in number, never decrease, like entropy. Who would dare to remove
> an include directive from a *header* file? After all, it might be
> required somewhere up the include chain in one of those myriads of
> files. With the "headers don't include headers" this is dead simple to
> answer, even without FlexeLint: remove it and check if it compiles to
> the same object file as before. All you need to worry about is *one* C
> file. If you want to remove an include from a header, you repeat this
> check for *all the others including it directly or indirectly*. Nobody
> but the most determined developers dare doing this. THAT is ugly.

As for removing include directives from header files, I do it whenever I 
modify a header file in such a way that the include directive is no 
longer needed. Furthermore, it's not a question of who might need that 
header file up the food chain, it's only a question of is that header 
needed to provide what this header is supposed to provide. If something 
downstream no longer compiles, then I fix that there. It's also how most 
of the people I've worked with do it.

Martin Shobe

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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