Hi! > I wonder how clients of the class declared in the .hpp file can use that > class at all. > Unless I am missing something, they won’t be able to (at least not in the > general case) > unless they also include the .inl file.
Depends from what part of the module API you want to use. E.g. if only macros or types/classes are need, including the .hpp is faster and sufficient. This means a .hpp will typically include other .hpp. If you want to call functions you will include .inl. This means a .cpp or a .inl will typically include other .inl. > Wouldn’t it be simplier to #include the inl file in the hpp file? That way > you still > have separation of declaration and definition on a file-level, but don’t > expose users of > your C++ headers (including moc) to your way of organizing things. Tried that before. Then it turned out that on the .inl level a mutual dependency lock can happen (similar to what you get if normal hpp/cpp modules try to include include eachother without using forward declarations). Only the two-level-inclusion as described above reliably solves all mutual inclusion issues. -- Best Regards, Bernhard Lindner _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
