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, it would be slightly nice if I didn't have to write that twice. But it's a minor issue.
Interesting, as an Ada person, I actually LIKE the idea of writing the signature in both places. The Ada view here is that it serves very different purposes, in the header, it is part of the specification, and in the implementation it is there for easy access to anyone reading the implementation, and is a reminder that the implementation must conform to this spec. I think it helps readability to have it in both places (with of course the compiler checking that it is the same). Its a slight pain for the writer, but in Ada we never care even a little bit about the convenience of the writer over the convenience of the reader, and of course appropriate tools could simplify the duplication.
Don't you ever had to modify the classes after you've written them? I am surprised, because I have talked to other developers and they have too said that it would be nice if headers could be avoided.
Again, I like using headers in this way, I think it clarifies the structure of the program. As I say, I am influenced by Ada. It is always interesting to see the range of possible views of C headers from a) annoying junk required by the compiler, spend the least possible time messing with them, and certainly don't bother commenting them. to b) headers function like package specifications in Ada, and should be regarded as specifications and fully commented accordingly. If you follow path b) you end up with C or C++ code that has quite an Ada-like feel with regard to separation of spec and implementation.
