0

What's the thoughts on allowing simple constructor/method definitions in header files in C++. Some classes I am creating are simple data objects that compose another object say, so they need there own constructor and get/set methods. However these are usually < 3-4 lines each with the constructors using init lists. Is it OK to just have .h for these classes.?

UPDATE:: What about where to store .h files, in a seperate directory from the cpp files?

Mark
  • 1,448
  • 5
  • 21
  • 31

6 Answers6

6

I'd vote for only putting declarations in your header file. This will make the header file more clean (no implementation cluttering your view). The user can look upon the header file to view the interface, without being confronted with irrelevant implementation details.

Putting definitions (as opposed to declarations) in your header file can also cause linker errors (as mentioned by Captain Comic). Maybe not currently, but surely when you expand your code.

Besides, explicitly separating declaration from definition (lets forget templates and inline functions here) also works towards a more "perfect" model. The code will be completely modularized in separate source files. From my personal experiences this takes time and care, but is consistent and avoids linker errors etc.

Surely, if you're writing a quick application nobody else is going to see...nobody is there to criticize ;)

Taco de Wolff
  • 1,592
  • 2
  • 16
  • 33
  • I think it might require a little more work, but will be cleaner and safer to have no definitions at all. – Mark Sep 23 '10 at 19:28
  • I personally store headers files in a separate (but 'synchronized') directory for my own library. This makes it easy to distribute, and for my IDE it doesn't matter anyways. Otherwise, I dump them in one directory, or do create structure when things tend to become chaos... – Taco de Wolff Sep 23 '10 at 19:39
  • My vim command for switching works when they are in the same directory, I suppose as long as its a fairly small project it ok. – Mark Sep 23 '10 at 19:43
  • For inline methods define outside the class body, I thought I *have to* put it in a header file, so that the compiler sees them only once. Am I wrong? http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/inline-functions.html#faq-9.7 – Arun Sep 23 '10 at 20:05
  • Yes, ArunSaha, you are right; how else would the compiler know _what_ to inline, true. The definition would still be separated from the declaration though (for class methods), and in the definition should come the 'inline' keyword (as this is an implementation detail). – Taco de Wolff Sep 23 '10 at 20:26
  • I've also had other issues with code in includes. Code in one include file has been broken by declarations in other include files. Also I've had conflicting typedef's from different author's code. Using namespaces can help others use your code. – Jay Sep 23 '10 at 22:01
2

Go for it.

If you want a better response, elaborate on your problems, post code, etc.

John Dibling
  • 94,084
  • 27
  • 171
  • 303
1

I put .h files in the same directory as the .cpp files. They are coupled anyway, so why split them up?!

It's much easier for the IDE to locate the matching file when you want to jump between declaration (in foo.h) and definition (in foo.cpp).

Only for external headers, that is those headers that are used by external projects, I might create a separate folder.

Sjoerd
  • 6,534
  • 27
  • 44
0

One important thing you have to bear in mind is that it is the .cpp files that are compiled, not header files. So design carefully who will include you headers, otherwise you'll get linker errors.

Captain Comic
  • 14,130
  • 42
  • 99
  • 140
0

I asked my professor this same question a few hours ago, when he advocated putting a few getters in a .h file, which was foreign to me as a C programmer.

He said that one purpose of the .h file was to give a quick overview of the class. If you've ever programmed in Java, you've probably built or read some huge classes, and locating a specific function can be a pain. A good text editor with folding capabilities or an IDE with an outline view can help you cope with the problem, but that's not always available. A one-line getter/setter or initializing constructor which will not slow a reader down is probably permissible.

Kevin Vermeer
  • 2,556
  • 1
  • 25
  • 37
-2

Sometimes it all depends on the IDE or the environment in which you are developing the code. Usually

/source-tree
       /bin -------> executables or lib or dlls 
       /h -------> headers 
       /source -------> source codes 
       /Makefile -------> The root make file

Now about the code structure, it depends on what you are developing. If some APIs for some data container, which will be used across different modules, It is something like, -

Header Files ------->

//ICoordinate.hpp
template <class T>
class ICoordinate
{
    public:
        virtual ~ICoordinate() {}
        virtual void SetX(T ) = 0;
        virtual void SetY(T ) = 0;
        virtual T    GetX(void) = 0;
};
// Co-ordinate system for ploting decimal points :-)
// class template specialization.
template <>
class ICoordinate<int>
{
    public:
        virtual ~ICoordinate() {}
        void SetX(int );
        void SetY(int );
    private:
        int x,y;
};

Source File --------->

// DecimalCoordinate.cpp
// Implementation for DecimalCoordinate

If you do not have problem with vtable lookup latency, you can always define with some pure virtual methods (just what i did here). There is post regarding the interface declaration.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
yadab
  • 1,963
  • 1
  • 14
  • 24
  • I just wanted to forget template for a moment. :-) – yadab Sep 23 '10 at 23:46
  • @yadab: `void` is an incomplete type, and you can't dereference a pointer to an incomplete type. You probably meant `*(int*)p_x` which would be a really bad practice, but the way it is now is an error. – Ben Voigt Sep 24 '10 at 00:17
  • @ben-voigt changed it. :-( No more void*. I like old C :-) – yadab Sep 24 '10 at 00:46
  • Is there a reason why you have put virtual in front of ICoordinate::SetX() but didn't include it in front of ICoordinate::SetX()? – Sjoerd Sep 24 '10 at 15:47