My original class structure was similar to:
//def.h
namespace A
{
struct X {};
}
and forward declarations where needed:
//file that needs forward declarations
namespace A { struct X; }
After some refactoring, X
was moved to a different namespace, but to keep old code "working" using
directives were used:
//def.h
namespace B
{
struct X {};
}
namespace A
{
using ::B::X;
}
Now we can access the same class keeping the old syntax A::X
, but the forward declarations cause errors. The second problem is that the error message I'm getting doesn't point to where the forward declarations are, and finding/replacing the forward declarations is time-consuming.
For now I fixed the problem (the hard way).
What is the best approach to deal with this situation?
IMO, the using
shouldn't be there at all, and all code that uses X
should be refactored to accomodate the new namespace (this is one solution), but unfortunately this isn't an option.
The actual code is a lot more complicated, this is a simplified example.
I realize this is more about new code than about refactoring existing code, but I like using a special header called X_fwd.hpp
for such cases.
// X_def.hpp
namespace B
{
struct X {};
}
namespace A
{
// NOT: using namespace B; // does not participate in ADL!
typedef ::B::X X; // OR: using ::B::X;
}
// X_fwd.hpp
namespace A { struct X; }
// some file needing declaration of X
#include <X_fwd.hpp>
This makes it a lot easier to find forward declarations, and also to change them after the fact, because the change is isolated in one place only (DRY...).
NOTE1: AFAIK, there is no technical difference between using Peter Wood's answer of a typedef
and your using
declaration. Note that a using
directive using namespace B;
could cause trouble because these are ignored by Argument-Dependent-Lookup. Even worse, some of your code might then even silently call the wrong function overload because you are not pulling in the new namespace B
anymore!
NOTE2: In the comments to the question, an Ideone example was given. This nicely illustrates a subtlety about name lookup inside namespaces: to quote from the draft Standard, section 3.4.3.2 Namespace members [namespace.qual], clause 2
For a namespace X and name m, the namespace-qualified lookup set S(X, m) is defined as follows: Let S'(X, m) be the set of all declarations of m in X and the inline namespace set of X (7.3.1). If S'(X, m) is not empty, S(X, m) is S'(X, m); otherwise, S(X, m) is the union of S(Ni, m) for all namespaces Ni nominated by using-directives in X and its inline namespace set.
This explains the following tricky ambiguity
namespace A
{
struct X1{};
struct X2{};
}
namespace B
{
using A::X1; // OK: lookup-set is both namespace A and B, and a single unique name is found (at this point!)
struct X1; // OK: lookup-set is namespace B, and a single unique name is found
struct X2; // OK: lookup-set is namespace B, and a single unique name is found
using A::X2; // error: lookup-set is both namespace A and B, and no unique name is found (at this point!)
}
So the validity of having both a direct declaration and a using-declaration with the same name inside a namespace is order-dependent. Hence the convenience of a single declaration in a fwd header file.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With