Duplicate global constants

[Will]

Hi,

I'm linking into a library that has a global constant with the same
name as one in my application. My references to the constant are
being linked to the value in the library instead of the one in my
source file. Both constants are extern so I'm assuming it's undefined
which value I get. Obviously this is one of the reasons why global
constants are usually a bad idea.

I'm considering using a namespace to better encapsulate my constant
values. However, I'm working on a huge application with many
constants, which are used all over the place. So this would be a
significant change. Is this the best long term solution? Are there
other patterns for encapsulating constant values?

Thanks,
Will

[Rafał Maj Raf256]

Will wrote:

I'm considering using a namespace to better encapsulate my constant
values. However, I'm working on a huge application with many
constants, which are used all over the place. So this would be a

Using globals (especially menay of them) is considered a bad idea in C++

--
Wymiana starych układów... na nowe układy - prawie jak walka z korupcja.
Walka z wychowaniem seksualnym i erotykÄ… - prawie jak walka z patologiÄ….
PiS - prawie jak prawo i sprawiedliwość... Prawie. Prawie robi różnicę.
Myśl. Głosuj rozsądnie. Nie na tanie hasła. // Rafał Maj Raf256

[Phlip]

Will wrote:

I'm linking into a library that has a global constant with the same
name as one in my application. My references to the constant are
being linked to the value in the library instead of the one in my
source file. Both constants are extern so I'm assuming it's undefined
which value I get. Obviously this is one of the reasons why global
constants are usually a bad idea.

I'm considering using a namespace to better encapsulate my constant
values. However, I'm working on a huge application with many
constants, which are used all over the place. So this would be a
significant change. Is this the best long term solution? Are there
other patterns for encapsulating constant values?

Firstly, code that only ever says "extern const int q = 5;" and never says
"const int q = 5;" is code that relies on an old sloppy C technique that
C++ no longer permits. 'q' must live somewhere - in a home translation unit
- to link, even though it's constant.

The solution is 'static const int q = 5;'. This only has scope in the
current translation unit, and lives there, one copy per module.

In general, your code should must use much better style (namespaces, no
globals, etc.) to stay ahead of this legacy code.

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

[Pete Becker]

Will wrote:

Hi,

I'm linking into a library that has a global constant with the same
name as one in my application. My references to the constant are
being linked to the value in the library instead of the one in my
source file. Both constants are extern so I'm assuming it's undefined
which value I get. Obviously this is one of the reasons why global
constants are usually a bad idea.

I'm considering using a namespace to better encapsulate my constant
values. However, I'm working on a huge application with many
constants, which are used all over the place. So this would be a
significant change. Is this the best long term solution? Are there
other patterns for encapsulating constant values?

For a short-term, minimal change, this should work:

namespace hide_this_name
{
const int i = 3;
}

using hide_this_name::i;

// pre-existing code that uses "i" goes here

Wherever your source code uses "i" the compiler will use the name
hide_this_name::i (in whatever form the compiler uses). That won't
conflict with the name "i" in the library, so long as you aren't using
any headers that refer to that version of "i".

--

Pete Becker
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.

[Fei Liu]

Will wrote:

Hi,

I'm linking into a library that has a global constant with the same
name as one in my application. My references to the constant are
being linked to the value in the library instead of the one in my
source file. Both constants are extern so I'm assuming it's undefined
which value I get. Obviously this is one of the reasons why global
constants are usually a bad idea.

I'm considering using a namespace to better encapsulate my constant
values. However, I'm working on a huge application with many
constants, which are used all over the place. So this would be a
significant change. Is this the best long term solution? Are there
other patterns for encapsulating constant values?

Thanks,
Will

Use namespace, one of its design purpose is to avoid name space
pollution, as what's going on in your case.

[Tomás]

Will posted:

Hi,

I'm linking into a library that has a global constant with the same
name as one in my application. My references to the constant are
being linked to the value in the library instead of the one in my
source file. Both constants are extern so I'm assuming it's undefined
which value I get. Obviously this is one of the reasons why global
constants are usually a bad idea.

I'm considering using a namespace to better encapsulate my constant
values. However, I'm working on a huge application with many
constants, which are used all over the place. So this would be a
significant change. Is this the best long term solution? Are there
other patterns for encapsulating constant values?

Thanks,
Will

Even if you don't find a solution you like, God created "Find and
Replace" for a reason : ).
-Tomás