Re: [boost] test_main.cpp (was Review: Function library)

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-14 09:03:21

At 01:16 AM 6/14/2001, Darin Adler wrote:

 >On Wednesday, June 13, 2001, at 06:55  PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
 >
 >> That's what I thought.  But what is confusing about the request is that 

 >> the
 >> two functions in question are declared in a header (test_tools.hpp) so
 >> they
 >> shouldn't be hidden.
 >
 >Then the appropriate fix would be to include the test_tools.hpp header in 

 >test_tools.cpp. That's what's causing the problem here, I think.

test_main.cpp is sort of an odd bird.  It is unusual for a file sometimes 
to be treated as a header, and other times as an implementation file.  Thus 
I'm still feeling my way as to what the best practice is for these 
hermaphrodite files.

 >In my own programs, as a matter of style I include the corresponding
 >header first, before any standard headers. This helps make sure you don't 

 >forget to include it, and also provides a rudimentary "does this header
 >include enough things to stand alone" check. I'd like to suggest it was a 

 >standard practice for Boost as well.

Interesting.  I don't remember ever hearing any suggested practice for 
ordering of #includes.  Do you have a simple example of an error your 
suggestion would detect?  I think I understand your rationale, but an 
example might help.

--Beman