The organisation of source files is a topic that is quite seldom addressed in C++. With C++20 we will get modules, but until then we should distinguish between the implementation and the interface of our code.
The C++ Core Guidelines makes their point to source files quite clear: "Distinguish between declarations (used as interfaces) and definitions (used as implementations). Use header files to represent interfaces and to emphasize logical structure." Consequently, there are more than ten rules to source files. The first eleven rules deal with interface files (*.h-files) and implementation files (*.cpp-files) and the last three with namespaces.
Let me start with the rules to the interface and implementation files. Here are the first seven:
I will not write about each rule in full depth, but I want to make a readable story out of the first rules by just quoting the rule.
Okay, SF.1: Use a
.cpp suffix for code files and
.h for interface files if your project doesn’t already follow another convention that talks about consistency. When you have a C++ project, header files should be called *.h and implementation files *.cpp. Convention beats this rule if you have already another policy in our project.
Of course, I often saw other conventions for header and implementation files. Here are a few, I have in mind:
- Header files:
- Implementation files:
I assume you know various other conventions.
If your header file contains an object definition or a definition of a non-inline function, your linker may complain. This is the reason for the second rule SF.2: A
.h file may not contain object definitions or non-inline function definitions. To be more specific, we have the One Definition Rule in C++:
ODR stands for the One Definition Rule and says in the case of a function.
- A function can have not more than one definition in any translation unit.
- A function can have not more than one definition in the program.
- Inline functions with external linkage can be defined in more than one translation. The definitions have to satisfy the requirement that each definition has to be the same.
In modern compilers, the keyword inline is not about inlining functions any more. Modern compilers almost completely ignore it. The more or less use-case for inline is to mark functions for ODR correctness. In my opinion, the name inline is nowadays quite misleading.
Let see what my linker has to say when I try to link a program breaking the one definition rule. The following code example has one header file header.h and two implementation files. The implementations file includes the header files and, therefore, break the one definition rule, because of two definitions of func exit.
The linker complains about the multiple definitions of func:
The next two rules are evident from the readability and maintainability point of view: SF.3: Use
.h files for all declarations used in multiple source files and SF.4: Include
.h files before other declarations in a file.
Rule 5 is more interesting: SF.5: A
.cpp file must include the
.h file(s) that defines its interface. The interesting question is: What would happen if you don't include the *.h file into the *.cpp file and there is a mismatch between the interface file *.h and the implementation file *.cpp?.
Assume I had a bad day. I defined a function func that gets and int and returns an int.
// #include "impl.h"
My mistake was that I declared this function in the header file impl.h getting an int but returning a std::string.
I include the header in the main program because I want to use this function there.
auto res = func(5);
The issue is that the error may be delayed until link time when the main program main.cpp is compiled. This is too late.
If I include the header impl.h in my impl.cpp file, I will get a compile-time error.
The next rules are about namespaces: SF.6: Use
using namespace directives for transition, for foundation libraries (such as
std), or within a local scope (only). Honestly, this rule is too weak for me. I'm against using namespaces directives such as in the following example.
using namespace std;
int g(int x)
int sqrt = 7;
return sqrt(x); // error
The program will not compile, because there is a name clash. This is not my main argument against using directive. My main argument is that the using directive hides the origin of the name and break the readability of the code.
using namespace std;
using namespace std::chrono;
using namespace std::literals::chrono_literals;
std::cout << std::endl;
auto schoolHour= 45min;
auto shortBreak= 300s;
auto longBreak= 0.25h;
auto schoolWay= 15min;
auto homework= 2h;
auto schoolDayInSeconds= 2 * schoolWay + 6 * schoolHour + 4 * shortBreak + longBreak + homework;
cout << "School day in seconds: " << schoolDayInSeconds.count() << endl;
duration<double, ratio<3600>> schoolDayInHours = schoolDayInSeconds;
duration<double, ratio<60>> schoolDayInMinutes = schoolDayInSeconds;
duration<double, ratio<1, 1000>> schoolDayInMilliseconds = schoolDayInSeconds;
cout << "School day in hours: " << schoolDayInHours.count() << endl;
cout << "School day in minutes: " << schoolDayInMinutes.count() << endl;
cout << "School day in milliseconds: " << schoolDayInMilliseconds.count() << endl;
cout << endl;
Do you know by heart, which literal, function, or object was defined in which namespace? If not, looking for the definition of a name may become a challenge. This holds, in particular, true, if you are a novice.
Before I end this post, there is one import rule I have to mention: SF.7: Don’t write
using namespace at global scope in a header file. Here is the rationale:
A using namespace at global scope in the header injects names into every file that includes that header. This has a few consequences:
- When you use the header, you can not undo the using directive.
- The danger of a name collision increases drastically.
- A change of the included namespace may break your build because a new name was introduced.
First, a few rules to the organisation of source files are left. Additionally, we will get modules with C++20. Let's see which affect these significant features has on C++-
Thanks a lot to my Patreon Supporters: Matt Braun, Roman Postanciuc, Tobias Zindl, Marko, G Prvulovic, Reinhold Dröge, Abernitzke, Frank Grimm, Sakib, Broeserl, António Pina, Sergey Agafyin, Андрей Бурмистров, Jake, GS, Lawton Shoemake, Animus24, Jozo Leko, John Breland, Louis St-Amour, Venkat Nandam, Jose Francisco, Douglas Tinkham, Kuchlong Kuchlong, Robert Blanch, Truels Wissneth, Kris Kafka, Mario Luoni, Neil Wang, Friedrich Huber, lennonli, Pramod Tikare Muralidhara, Peter Ware, Daniel Hufschläger, Alessandro Pezzato, Evangelos Denaxas, Bob Perry, Satish Vangipuram, Andi Ireland, Richard Ohnemus, Michael Dunsky, Leo Goodstadt, Eduardo Velasquez, John Wiederhirn, Yacob Cohen-Arazi, Florian Tischler, Robin Furness, Michael Young, Holger Detering, Bernd Mühlhaus, Matthieu Bolt, Stephen Kelley, Kyle Dean, Tusar Palauri, Dmitry Farberov, Ralf Holly, Juan Dent, George Liao, and Daniel Ceperley.
Thanks in particular to Jon Hess, Lakshman, Christian Wittenhorst, Sherhy Pyton, Dendi Suhubdy, Sudhakar Belagurusamy, Richard Sargeant, Rusty Fleming, Ralf Abramowitsch, John Nebel, and Mipko.
My special thanks to Embarcadero
My special thanks to PVS-Studio
My new mentoring program "Fundamentals for C++ Professionals" starts on the 22nd of April. Get more information here: https://bit.ly/MentoringProgramModernesCpp.
I'm happy to give online seminars or face-to-face seminars worldwide. Please call me if you have any questions.
Standard Seminars (English/German)
Here is a compilation of my standard seminars. These seminars are only meant to give you a first orientation.
- Phone: +49 7472 917441
- Mobil:: +49 176 5506 5086
- German Seminar Page: www.ModernesCpp.de
- English Seminar Page: www.ModernesCpp.net