class templates with pointers to each other in seperate header files

[Ben]

I'm kind of new to creating templates. I've made some small class and
function templates in the past and I have used quite of bit of the STL,
but I am having problems tyring to create templates.

I'm trying to make class templates in seperate header files with
pointers to each other, and I am getting strange errors.

Is it possible to do?

[Luke Meyers]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

It may be that we're not really disagreeing.

However, what you wrote has as its limit to not include other headers in
a header, and leave that to the implementation files, since what you
"absolutely /have to/" include is zero, nix, nada; a common practice
with Microsoft (e.g. Visual Studio generated headers are that way).
I see now whence came confusion. I could have stated it less strongly,
but do note that I gave several examples of what I meant by "absolutely
have to" -- base classes, by-value members, and typedefs. The
Microsoft Way you describe evidently jumps through hoops to elide even
these, with the consequences you describe. So, I'll try to be less
liberal with universal qualifiers, but I do wonder whether you really
thought I meant to recommend such an extreme, given that doing so would
contraindicate the examples I explicitly gave.
Since I only criticized that abhorrent practice, not stating anything
about my own preferences, perhaps that would be in order; see ch 1.6 of
<url: http://home.no.net/dubjai/win32cpptut/html/w32cpptut_01.ht ml>,
I'll have to satisfy myself with the section you quoted -- downloading
and unzipping a word doc is generally past my pain threshold for casual
newsreading. HTML-ify it and I'll gladly take a peek.
where the most important quote is (quoting myself :-) )
I get accused of that a lot when I cite Scott Meyers. ;)
"A header file
should always be self-contained: it should be possible to just #include
it without having to #include any other headers first"; subject to that
requirement it's fine to minimize the dependencies, otherwise IMO not.

Yes. This strikes me as so fundamental that I would rather state it as
an absolute than suggest any ambiguity.

Luke

[Ben]

> Certainly.

It's unfortunate that so many people are taught to add #includes into
headers for everything their class uses. You should only #include what
you absolutely *have to* in a header (most commonly base classes,
by-value members (when not using pimpl), and typedefs), and leave the
rest for the implementation file. This really helps to cut down on
build times and recompilation.

While you're looking at the FAQ, take a peek at the section on posting
etiquette and quoting conventions -- really helps if you indicate what
you're replying to.

Aaahh...I finally figured it out! I just removed the #include <B.h>
from A.h, and put an #include <B.h> in front of everywhere that there
is an #include <A.h>

[Diego Martins]

Luke Meyers wrote:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

It may be that we're not really disagreeing.

However, what you wrote has as its limit to not include other headers in
a header, and leave that to the implementation files, since what you
"absolutely /have to/" include is zero, nix, nada; a common practice
with Microsoft (e.g. Visual Studio generated headers are that way).

I see now whence came confusion. I could have stated it less strongly,
but do note that I gave several examples of what I meant by "absolutely
have to" -- base classes, by-value members, and typedefs. The
Microsoft Way you describe evidently jumps through hoops to elide even
these, with the consequences you describe. So, I'll try to be less
liberal with universal qualifiers, but I do wonder whether you really
thought I meant to recommend such an extreme, given that doing so would
contraindicate the examples I explicitly gave.

Since I only criticized that abhorrent practice, not stating anything
about my own preferences, perhaps that would be in order; see ch 1.6 of
<url: http://home.no.net/dubjai/win32cpptut/html/w32cpptut_01.ht ml>,

I'll have to satisfy myself with the section you quoted -- downloading
and unzipping a word doc is generally past my pain threshold for casual
newsreading. HTML-ify it and I'll gladly take a peek.

where the most important quote is (quoting myself :-) )

I get accused of that a lot when I cite Scott Meyers. ;)

"A header file
should always be self-contained: it should be possible to just #include
it without having to #include any other headers first"; subject to that
requirement it's fine to minimize the dependencies, otherwise IMO not.

Yes. This strikes me as so fundamental that I would rather state it as
an absolute than suggest any ambiguity.

Luke

M$ headers suck a lot!
Try using winsock2.h and you will see wonders

even openGL headers may annoy the M$ unexperienced user :-(