Achilleas Margaritis axil...@gmail.com writes:
So, if the compiler checks the code, and the documentation says
whatever must be said about the program, headers are completely
redundant.
I think this is often/usually not true in practice though.
It seems _far_ more common for there to be
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
as
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 only data which appears in
both places is the function signature. Yes,
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 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 the actual knowledge required, a lot of
documentation has to be written. I
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 this
automatically in Ada.
Why not? Because you might be able to generate
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 the
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 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.
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 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 that the compiler must be changed to support your
proposal, so that functions
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
On 1/14/2011 10:17 AM, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
The #autoinclude pragma can select to inline only those member
functions that are good candidates for inlining. I.e. it can inline
trivial code. I believe the GCC code already contains such criteria,
like any other good compiler.
Not sure
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 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 not change the language in any way, it only is a
copy-and-paste job.
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
...
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. C is such a
loose language that applying the notion of specification is hard. Ada is
quite another story.
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 quality.
Back many years ago when I was doing VLSI design, there was one large
CAD
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 1/14/2011 11:07 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Back many years ago when I was doing VLSI design, there was one large
CAD system written in C (I forget which one now) that had extensive
documentation in their header files. I think that was a major part of
the quality of that tool.
There you go
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 them. I.e. there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between
Ada package declarations and
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
On 1/14/2011 11:08 AM, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Paul Koningpaul_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
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-written Java programs),
but it is so much easier to do if you have separate
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
[...]
There is a violation of the C++-standard:
- when main.cpp is compiled, the compiler reads foo.hpp -- and it
learns that the class Foo has a member-function bar which can be
call from within main.cpp -- so
On 1/14/2011 11:18 AM, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
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
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
On 14 January 2011 15:39, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
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
On 1/14/2011 11:44 AM, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
Oh yes it does. Have you seen a Qt source code file? we are talking
about some comments being many pages long. Multiply that with multiple
inclusions of the same header, add lots of files, and you get the
idea.
There are lots of specs in the
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
On 1/14/2011 12:10 PM, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
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
On 14 January 2011 17:10, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
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
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
Achilleas Margaritis axil...@gmail.com writes:
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
I am not mistaken. For a single Ada program that compiles
successfully, there is 1-to-1 correspondence of a package declaration
and package body.
It's not uncommon to have multiple different implementations of the
same specification, for example for different target architectures or
On 14 January 2011 16:39, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
I have already explained it, but I don't mind explaining it once more:
1) the pragma #autoinclude (foo.hpp, foo.cpp) instructs the
compiler to generate the header 'foo.hpp' from the implementation file
'foo.cpp'.
2) the compiler opens
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 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 be part of gcc, rather than a separate program that takes a cpp file
and
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 be
On 13 January 2011 13:06, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
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
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
On 13 January 2011 16:59, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
The pragma can be ignored by other compilers. Conditional compilation
would help in including the header for other compilers.
Except the header wouldn't exist if you use other compilers, because
you need gcc to generate it.
No, in other
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
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
as maintaining headers. I write class definitions in .h files and
function
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
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 from such a thing. The idea is the following:
Each time the compiler finds
Achilleas Margaritis axil...@gmail.com writes:
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
49 matches
Mail list logo
