Pros and cons of using nested C++ classes and enum

问题:

What are the pros and cons of using nested public C++ classes and enumerations? For example, suppose you have a class called printer, and this class also stores information on output trays, you could have:

class printer
{
public:
    std::string name_;

    enum TYPE
    {
        TYPE_LOCAL,
        TYPE_NETWORK,
    };

    class output_tray
    {
        ...
    };
    ...
};

printer prn;
printer::TYPE type;
printer::output_tray tray;

Alternatively:

class printer
{
public:
    std::string name_;
    ...
};

enum PRINTER_TYPE
{
    PRINTER_TYPE_LOCAL,
    PRINTER_TYPE_NETWORK,
};

class output_tray
{
    ...
};

printer prn;
PRINTER_TYPE type;
output_tray tray;

I can see the benefits of nesting private enums/classes, but when it comes to public ones, the office is split - it seems to be more of a style choice.

So, which do you prefer and why?

回答1:

Nested classes

There are several side effects to classes nested inside classes that I usually consider flaws (if not pure antipatterns).

Let's imagine the following code :

class A
{
   public :
      class B { /* etc. */ } ;

   // etc.
} ;

Or even:

class A
{
   public :
      class B ;

   // etc.
} ;

class A::B
{
   public :

   // etc.
} ;

So:

• Privilegied Access: A::B has privilegied access to all members of A (methods, variables, symbols, etc.), which weakens encapsulation
• A's scope is candidate for symbol lookup: code from inside B will see all symbols from A as possible candidates for a symbol lookup, which can confuse the code
• forward-declaration: There is no way to forward-declare A::B without giving a full declaration of A
• Extensibility: It is impossible to add another class A::C unless you are owner of A
• Code verbosity: putting classes into classes only makes headers larger. You can still separate this into multiple declarations, but there's no way to use namespace-like aliases, imports or usings.

As a conclusion, unless exceptions (e.g. the nested class is an intimate part of the nesting class... And even then...), I see no point in nested classes in normal code, as the flaws outweights by magnitudes the perceived advantages.

Furthermore, it smells as a clumsy attempt to simulate namespacing without using C++ namespaces.

On the pro-side, you isolate this code, and if private, make it unusable but from the "outside" class...

Nested enums

Pros: Everything.

Con: Nothing.

The fact is enum items will pollute the global scope:

// collision
enum Value { empty = 7, undefined, defined } ;
enum Glass { empty = 42, half, full } ;

// empty is from Value or Glass?

Ony by putting each enum in a different namespace/class will enable you to avoid this collision:

namespace Value { enum type { empty = 7, undefined, defined } ; }
namespace Glass { enum type { empty = 42, half, full } ; }

// Value::type e = Value::empty ;
// Glass::type f = Glass::empty ;

Note that C++0x defined the class enum:

enum class Value { empty, undefined, defined } ;
enum class Glass { empty, half, full } ;

// Value e = Value::empty ;
// Glass f = Glass::empty ;

exactly for this kind of problems.

回答2:

One con that can become a big deal for large projects is that it is impossible to make a forward declaration for nested classes or enums.

回答3:

If you're never going to be using the dependent class for anything but working with the independent class's implementations, nested classes are fine, in my opinion.

It's when you want to be using the "internal" class as an object in its own right that things can start getting a little manky and you have to start writing extractor/inserter routines. Not a pretty situation.

回答4:

It seems like you should be using namespaces instead of classes to group like things that are related to each other in this way. One con that I could see in doing nested classes is you end up with a really large source file that could be hard to grok when you are searching for a section.

回答5:

There are no pros and cons per se of using nested public C++ classes. There are only facts. Those facts are mandated by the C++ standard. Whether a fact about nested public C++ classes is a pro or a con depends on the particular problem that you are trying to solve. The example you have given does not allow a judgement about whether nested classes are appropriate or not.

One fact about nested classes is, that they have privileged access to all members of the class that they belong to. This is a con, if the nested classes does not need such access. But if the nested class does not need such access, then it should not have been declared as a nested class. There are situations, when a class A wants to grant privileged access to certain other classes B. There are three solutions to this problem

1. Make B a friend of A
2. Make B a nested class of A
3. Make the methods and attributes, that B needs, public members of A.

In this situation, it's #3 that violates encapsulation, because A has control over his friends and over his nested classes, but not over classes that call his public methods or access his public attributes.

Another fact about nested classes is, that it is impossible to add another class A::C as a nested class of A unless you are owner of A. However, this is perfectly reasonable, because nested classes have privileged access. If it were possible to add A::C as a nested class of A, then A::C could trick A into granting access to privileged information; and that yould violate encapsulation. It's basically the same as with the friend declaration: the friend declaration does not grant you any special privileges, that your friend is hiding from others; it allows your friends to access information that you are hiding from your non-friends. In C++, calling someone a friend is an altruistic act, not an egoistic one. The same holds for allowing a class to be a nested class.

Som other facts about nested public classes:

• A's scope is candidate for symbol lookup of B: If you don't want this, make B a friend of A instead of a nested class. However, there are cases where you want exactly this kind of symbol lookup.
• A::B cannot be forward-declared: A and A::B are tightly coupled. Being able to use A::B without knowing A would only hide this fact.

To summarize this: if the tool does not fit your needs, don't blame the tool; blame yourself for using the tool; others might have different problems, for which the tool is perfect.

回答6:

paercebal said everything I would say about nested enums.

WRT nested classes, my common and almost sole use case for them is when I have a class which is manipulating a specific type of resource, and I need a data class which represents something specific to that resource. In your case, output_tray might be a good example, but I don't generally use nested classes if the class is going to have any methods which are going to be called from outside the containing class, or is more than primarily a data class. I generally also don't nest data classes unless the contained class is not ever directly referenced outside the containing class.

So, for example, if I had a printer_manipulator class, it might have a contained class for printer manipulation errors, but printer itself would be a non-contained class.

Hope this helps. :)

回答7:

Remember that you can always promote a nested class to a top-level one later, but you may not be able to do the opposite without breaking existing code. Therefore, my advice would be make it a nested class first, and if it starts to become a problem, make it a top-level class in the next version.

回答8:

For me a big con to having it outside is that it becomes part of the global namespace. If the enum or related class only really applies to the class that it's in, then it makes sense. So in the printer case, everything that includes the printer will know about having full access to the enum PRINTER_TYPE, where it doesn't really need to know about it. I can't say i've ever used an internal class, but for an enum, this seems more logical to keep it inside. As another poster has pointed out, it's also a good idea to to use namespaces to group similar items, since clogging the global namespace can really be a bad thing. I have previously worked on projects which are massive and just bringing up an auto complete list on the global namespace takes 20 minutes. In my opinion nested enums and namespaced classes/structs are probably the cleanest approach.

回答9:

I agree with the posts advocating for embedding your enum in a class but there are cases where it makes more sense to not do that (but please, at least put it in a namespace). If multiple classes are utilizing an enum defined within a different class, then those classes are directly dependent on that other concrete class (that owns the enum). That surely represents a design flaw since that class will be responsible for that enum as well as other responsibilities.

So, yeah, embed the enum in a class if other code only uses that enum to interface directly with that concrete class. Otherwise, find a better place to keep the enum such as a namespace.

回答10:

If you put the enum into a class or a namespace, intellisense will be able to give you guidance when you're trying to remember the enum names. A small thing for sure, but sometimes the small things matter.

回答11:

Visual Studio 2008 does not seem to be able to provide intellisense for nested classes, so I have switched to the PIMPL idiom in most cases where I used to have a nested class. I always put enums either in the class if it is used only by that class, or outside the class in the same namespace as the class when more than one class uses the enum.

回答12:

I can see a con for nested classes, that one may better use generic programming.

If the little class is defined outside the big one, you can make the big class a class template and use any "little" class you may need in the future with the big class.

Generic programming is a powerful tool, and, IMHO, we should keep it in mind when developing extensible programs. Strange, that no one has mentioned this point.

回答13:

Only problem with nested classes that I bumped into yet was that C++ does not let us refer to the object of the enclosing class, in the nested class functions. We cannot say "Enclosing::this"

(But maybe there's a way?)