Which is the better way to define methods?

[Blue Ocean]

My c++ text tells me that I should define methods this way:

class Stack
{
int method(double t);
Stack(int s);
...
}

int Stack::method(d ouble t)
{
/* behavior */
}

but my experience with Java tells me that this way is better:

class Stack
{
int method(double t)
{
/* behavior */
}

Stack(int s)
{
/* behavior */
}
}

Which way do you use? Should I use the first or the second? I'd
rather develop good habits as I teach myself C++ rather than have to
go back and fix bad ones later. Thank you in advance for the help.

[puppet_sock]

JKop <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote in message news:<C1******* **********@news .indigo.ie>...

It's purely cosmetic.

[about putting function implementation in the class def or not]

It's largely cosmetic, but not purely.

- It can increase compile times on many platforms.
- It can change dependancies requiring more files to be recompiled.
- It exposes implementation details in header files un-necessarily.
Socks

[Phlip]

> JKop wrote:

It's purely cosmetic. [about putting function implementation in the class def or not]

It's largely cosmetic, but not purely.

- It can increase compile times on many platforms.
- It can change dependancies requiring more files to be recompiled.
- It exposes implementation details in header files un-necessarily.

Socks

One might first question the practice of instantly putting every class, as
you create it, into a new .h file named after it.

Suppose method A::Q needs new class B. Write it as close to Q as possible.
Migrate B to a .h file if and only if someone else needs it.

If nobody needs it without A, migrate it to A's .h file.

--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces

[Gary Labowitz]

"Ivan Vecerina" <NO************ *************** *******@vecerin a.com> wrote in
message news:cc******** **@newshispeed. ch...

"Blue Ocean" <ag***********@ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...

If that is right, let me extend the question a little. Should I
declare private methods in the .h file? Or should I declare them in
the .c file?

C and C++ are abit archaic in that they use this subdivision between a
header and a source file, which is an artefact from the way the compilers
work. Java avoids this problem because the equivalent of a header is
generated by the compiler automatically, in a binary form.

A side note: Java doesn't have the equivalent of a header, generated by the
compiler or otherwise. It loads and uses the class file for referenced
classes to resolve the static references at compile time. You may have
thought Java was "generating " the class file because it automatically
compiles it when needed if it can't find a precompiled class file, IF it can
find the source file with the same name. [This may sound a little confusing,
but I can't go into all the details on a C++ group -- see
comp.lang.java. programmer for further information if needed.]
--
Gary

[Ivan Vecerina]

"Gary Labowitz" <gl*******@comc ast.net> wrote in message
news:Xc******** ************@co mcast.com...

"Ivan Vecerina" <NO************ *************** *******@vecerin a.com> wrote in message news:cc******** **@newshispeed. ch...

C and C++ are abit archaic in that they use this subdivision between a
header and a source file, which is an artefact from the way the compilers work. Java avoids this problem because the equivalent of a header is
generated by the compiler automatically, in a binary form.
A side note: Java doesn't have the equivalent of a header, generated by

the compiler or otherwise. It loads and uses the class file for referenced
classes to resolve the static references at compile time. You may have
thought Java was "generating " the class file because it automatically
compiles it when needed if it can't find a precompiled class file, IF it can find the source file with the same name.

I'm aware of how Java functions. For the purpose of this discussion, the
compiled class file is for me the "binary form" equivalent of a C/C++
header,
in that this is where the compiler looks up information it needs for static
linking.

Some compilers already leverage 'precompiled headers', although they are
functionally limited (i.e. typically required to be the first header
included).

The (rarely available) implementation of template export also requires
something
similar to a header in compiled form.

Maybe someday, it will be common for C++ implementations to at least store
pre-compiled binary versions of headers. Or maybe some form of "class
export"
could make the 'pimpl' idiom be history, by avoiding contamination
with indirect header dependencies...
.... just thinkin' aloud ...
Ivan
--
http://ivan.vecerina.com/contact/?subject=NG_POST <- e-mail contact form

[jeffc]

"Blue Ocean" <bl*********@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:33******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...

My c++ text tells me that I should define methods this way:

class Stack
{
int method(double t);
Stack(int s);
...
}

int Stack::method(d ouble t)
{
/* behavior */
}

but my experience with Java tells me that this way is better:

class Stack
{
int method(double t)
{
/* behavior */
}

Stack(int s)
{
/* behavior */
}
}

Which way do you use? Should I use the first or the second?

Sorry, but your question makes no sense. I could try to speculate as to
what you mean, but you're better off proofreading that and taking another
shot. You defined a constructor in the second example, but not the first.