RE: [cdt-dev] Parser: Include handling

[kesselhaus@xxxxxxx]

I personally agree, and I did this the way its usually done before.
But right now, I'm part of a team, and the team guides say, no include in
the header, every header needed comes into the .c-file. I told them about
the other way, but the majority wants to stay as it is now.

Well, I'm mot sure if we would hit the 100kloc, since this is an embedded
system here.

> Personally I prefer the way it does it now.
> 
> To my mind, the header files should be self sufficient, and if I have
> not put enough in a header to make that header fully resolved, legal
> C/C++ in its own right, then I should be including other headers from
> within that header itself.  The yellow annotations are a cue that I need
> to do this.
> 
> IMHO, if you have a system whereby you have to know that to use the
> functions in foo.c in your own source file, you must #include foo.h,
> bar.h, stdio.h, and a whole host of stuff, then your system is not very
> well designed.  Sooner or later someone will make the mistake of
> thinking they can just #include "foo.h", and lo and behold the system
> won't build, and they have to spend valuable time sorting out the mess.
> There's really no compelling reason I can see why the original developer
> can't just put those includes in foo.h for you.
> 
> You can make the argument that for a small enough system and small
> enough team of developers, you can just make it work the way you say.
> But, having had the experience of working on projects where the lines of
> code starts approaching a million, I can say that this design approach
> does not scale.
> 
> My $0.02
> 
> ___________________________________________
>  
> Chris Recoskie
> Software Designer
> IDE Frameworks Group
> Texas Instruments, Toronto
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of kesselhaus@xxxxxxx
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:16 PM
> > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [cdt-dev] Parser: Include handling
> > 
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > it most likely doesn't work yet, but will the
> parser/scanner/whatso'ever
> > will be able to handle includes a different way than now.
> > 
> > Here, we do only include files in .c-modules, not .h-files. Though,
> > everytime, the parser stumbles over some unknown datatype, its marked
> > yellow. Even though, when all includes are handled in the .c-module,
> the
> > headers are marked over and over with yellow hints.
> > 
> > Is there a way, to have the .h-files not parsed on its own, but only
> > through
> > .c-module-inclusion? If in one module in case of missing inclusions, a
> > symbol is not defined, then one can mark the symbol as unkown.
> > 
> > Though, assuming:
> > global.h - typedefs like typedef unsigned char ubyte;
> > a.h      - no includes here, e.g. declares ubyte a_func();
> > b.h      - here neither, e.g. declares bit b_func(uword uw_b, bit n);
> > a.c      - include global.h, a.h (maybe b.h), e.g. uses a_func(),
> b_func()
> > b.c      - include global.h, b.h, e.g. uses b_func()
> > c.c      - include global.h, whatabout extern ubyte a_func();?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Henning
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > SMS bei wichtigen e-mails und Ihre Gedanken sind frei ...
> > Alle Infos zur SMS-Benachrichtigung: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/sms
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 

-- 
SMS bei wichtigen e-mails und Ihre Gedanken sind frei ...
Alle Infos zur SMS-Benachrichtigung: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/sms