Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-21 06:10:25

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 00:50:17 -0700, "Victor A. Wagner, Jr."
<vawjr_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>Well, Stroustrup (3rd edition), Section 9.2.1 (yeah, I know, not the standard)
>refers to "header files" as both the ones the system has, and the ones a
>programmer writes so that definitions of objects, functions, classes are
>consist ant.

That's the usual terminology, of course. And it could be the case that
Mr. Stroustrup is simply adhering to it (just like he talks of
'preprocessor' and also of 'preprocessor', 'compiler' and 'linker' as
three separate things). It's obvious that he knows very well the
details of the standard but his book has also (see the preface) a
certain regard towards tutorial aspects.

In any case what I don't like about similar terminologies (saying that
anything you #include is a header) is that they lose the connection
with the entity to which they refer, i.e. (I hope to be clear, I'm not
a native english speaker) that one should say: the header OF A
#include is the header identified by ITS the h-char-sequence part.
In other words, there's nothing that is a header PER SE, just like
there's nothing that is an addendum or a factor per se, and the same
number can be either one or the other. More strictly, when you say
that for instance 3 is an addendum, you are actually making an abuse
of language to say: "I'm considering the value of the addition
corresponding to a couple of numbers (3, x) or (x, 3)". Analogously,
with that terminology, saying "a header" would simply mean "a
#included thing".


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at