CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++namespacesprivate
Anonymous Penguin
Anonymous Penguin

Reputation: 2137

Is it acceptable to not include all function declarations in the header to create a "private namespace"?

I've been writing some code for a while now. I've been using namespaces to separate a few parts of code to make the code more readable. However, I ran into a problem where I wanted to make something in that private. Here's what I found works:

//foobar.h
namespace foo_bar {
  //Other items here...
}

//foobar.cpp
namespace foo_bar {
  //Other items here...
  void foo_barz() {..
    //Faked private method!
  }
}

It compiled fine. Is there any negative to using this method? I think a class might have been a better choice for this, but using a namespace, at the time, seemed like a simpler solution because it was all one project. Is there a more "conventional" way to do this? Is this likely to cause other issues down the road? What might some issues with this be?

EDIT: I guess I wasn't clear what I did. What I did was this: I didn't include the function prototype in the header file, so when included, the header file makes the code which the file was included into think that the function doesn't exist.

Upvotes: 3

Views: 101

Answers (1)

M.M
M.M

Reputation: 141544

To make foo_barz really "private" (i.e. not have its name accessible from other units), place it in an anonymous namespace, not foo_bar:

// foobar.cpp

namespace   /* stuff in here is only visible within this unit */
{ 
    void foo_barz() { ...
}

If you wanted to declare that function before defining it, you could add:

namespace 
{
    void foo_barz();
}

because multiple unnamed namespaces in the same unit actually all refer to the same unnamed namespace.

Another way to achieve the same thing is to declare the function as static:

static void foo_barz() { ...

which may be done inside or outside of a namespace. Some people disapprove of this option (for reasons that are not clear to me).

Upvotes: 6

Related Questions