On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Achilleas Margaritis axil...@gmail.com writes:
How much do you spend in maintaining headers? answers welcomed from
other members as well.
In C++, I personally spend very little time doing what I would describe
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
In C++, I personally spend very little time doing what I would describe
as maintaining headers. I write class definitions in .h files and
function implementations in .cc files. The
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 1/14/2011 8:47 AM, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
2) the actual knowledge about the program stored in a header is, from
my rough estimation, up around 20% of what the program actually does.
In order to incorporate
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
I guess I would just summarize things as follows. You
can possibly generate headers automatically (just as
you could generate subprogram specifications in Ada
automatically).
No one would ever think of suggesting doing
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 1/14/2011 9:23 AM, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
All newer languages don't have header files...
And to me, it is a serious flaw :-) One of
several, e.g. in Java.
Actually, it is not a flaw, it is a blessing :-).
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January 2011 13:26, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
My proposal does not change the language in any way, it only is a
copy-and-paste job.
That's not true, your example with an inline member function
demonstrates
1) It is not interesting work for me, so you do it or pay someone else
to do it (you seem to be into that camp).
That's always an appropriate response! The remedy is to propose a
patch yourself (or pay someone to do it), then we can see if it
makes sense when the details are worked out.
Is
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Axel Freyn axel-fr...@gmx.de wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 05:17:12PM +0200, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14 January 2011 13:26, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
My proposal does
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
...
2) I like headers because they are specifications (they aren't, but
what can I do if one believe so? nothing).
I think that's a matter of opinion, and language-specific as well.
I disagree that it is 'a matter of
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
And as an implementer of large C/C++ based embedded systems, I tend to the
view that, while some programmers don't think of headers as specifications,
they should, and doing so is helpful to achieving high
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
The Ada people call their headers 'specifications', because a lot of
program specifications are placed in those headers.
But they are not specifications in a sense that you can have multiple
implementations of
There you are definitely wrong. Of course headers are specifications,
they specify the parameter types etc.
Headers contain specifications, I agree to that. However:
1) headers could contain anything, at least in C/C++.
2) said specifications can be part of a single file of code; there is
no
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 1/14/2011 11:10 AM, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
The same documentation can be put in the implementation file.
Yes, if you have formal conventions for documentation you can
achieve the separation (as is done in well
There is a solution to that: the compiler, knowing that foo::bar is
not an inline function, it does not inline the function but it
automatically compiles the relevant symbol in the foo.o object file.
Which is a change to the language semantics!
The compiler can inline the trivial member
the compiler non-conforming makes it a non-starter. This would have to
be done under some switch.
The switch idea is fine by me, although not necessarily required,
since it can be implicit anyway (it's like saying to the end-users:
hey, you don't have all the functions inline with #autoinclude
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM, David Brown da...@westcontrol.com wrote:
On 12/01/2011 16:22, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
Hello all.
I have a idea for automatic generation of headers in a c++ program.
Having to maintain headers is a very time consuming task, and I think
we will all benefit
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 January 2011 11:09, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM, David Brown da...@westcontrol.com wrote:
I can see how such a feature could be useful, but is there any reason why it
should
A makefile will not work. I explain why below in the section about the
problem of clashing of symbols.
There is no default transformation. The header's filename extension
will be defined in the include string name. For example:
#pragma autoinclude(foo.hh)
#pragma autoinclude(foo.hpp)
You
Why not? doesn't GCC contain all that is required for that parsing to
succeed?
GCC has bugs and doesn't parse everything 100% correctly, given the
complexity of the language.
Oh, ok then. But I think consistence is more important than
correctness in this case: the result header file should
Hello all.
I have a idea for automatic generation of headers in a c++ program.
Having to maintain headers is a very time consuming task, and I think
we will all benefit from such a thing. The idea is the following:
Each time the compiler finds the pragma
#pragma autoinclude(foo.hpp)
it does
20 matches
Mail list logo
