C++ Core Guidelines: Source Files


The organisation of source files is a topic that is quite seldom addressed in C++. With C++20 we will get modules, but until then we should distinguish between the implementation and the interface of our code.

 serial 160834 1280

The C++ Core Guidelines makes their point to source files quite clear: "Distinguish between declarations (used as interfaces) and definitions (used as implementations). Use header files to represent interfaces and to emphasize logical structure." Consequently, there are more than ten rules to source files. The first eleven rules deal with interface files (*.h-files) and implementation files (*.cpp-files) and the last three with namespaces.

Let me start with the rules to the interface and implementation files. Here are the first seven:

I will not write about each rule in full depth, but I want to make a readable story out of the first rules by just quoting the rule.

Okay, SF.1: Use a .cpp suffix for code files and .h for interface files if your project doesn’t already follow another convention that talks about consistency. When you have a C++ project, header files should be called *.h and implementation files *.cpp. Convention beats this rule if you have already another policy in our project. 

Of course, I often saw other conventions for header and implementation files. Here are a few, I have in mind:

  • Header files:
    • *.h
    • *.hpp
    • *.hxx
  • Implementation files:
    • *.cpp
    • *.c
    • *.cc
    • *.cxx

I assume you know various other conventions.

If your header file contains an object definition or a definition of a non-inline function, your linker may complain. This is the reason for the second rule SF.2: A .h file may not contain object definitions or non-inline function definitions. To be more specific, we have the One Definition Rule in C++:


ODR stands for the One Definition Rule and says in the case of a function.

  • A function can have not more than one definition in any translation unit.
  • A function can have not more than one definition in the program.
  • Inline functions with external linkage can be defined in more than one translation. The definitions have to satisfy the requirement that each definition has to be the same.

In modern compilers, the keyword inline is not about inlining functions any more. Modern compilers almost completely ignore it. The more or less use-case for inline is to mark functions for ODR correctness. In my opinion, the name inline is nowadays quite misleading. 

Let see what my linker has to say when I try to link a program breaking the one definition rule. The following code example has one header file header.h and two implementation files. The implementations file includes the header files and, therefore, break the one definition rule, because of two definitions of func exit.

// header.h

void func(){}


// impl.cpp

#include "header.h"


// main.cpp

#include "header.h"

int main(){}


The linker complains about the multiple definitions of func:


The next two rules are evident from the readability and maintainability point of view: SF.3: Use .h files for all declarations used in multiple source files and SF.4: Include .h files before other declarations in a file.

Rule 5 is more interesting: SF.5: A .cpp file must include the .h file(s) that defines its interface. The interesting question is: What would happen if you don't include the *.h file into the *.cpp file and there is a mismatch between the interface file *.h and the implementation file *.cpp?.

Assume I had a bad day. I defined a function func that gets and int and returns an int.


// impl.cpp

// #include "impl.h" 

int func(int){
    return 5;


My mistake was that I declared this function in the header file impl.h getting an int but returning a std::string.


// impl.h

#include <string>

std::string func(int);


I include the header in the main program because I want to use this function there.


// main.cpp

#include "impl.h"

int main(){
    auto res = func(5);


The issue is that the error may be delayed until link time when the main program main.cpp is compiled. This is too late.


If I include the header impl.h in my impl.cpp file, I will get a compile-time error.


The next rules are about namespaces: SF.6: Use using namespace directives for transition, for foundation libraries (such as std), or within a local scope (only). Honestly, this rule is too weak for me. I'm against using namespaces directives such as in the following example.


#include <cmath>
using namespace std;

int g(int x)
    int sqrt = 7;
    // ...
    return sqrt(x); // error


The program will not compile, because there is a name clash. This is not my main argument against using directive. My main argument is that the using directive hides the origin of the name and break the readability of the code.

#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>

using namespace std;
using namespace std::chrono;
using namespace std::literals::chrono_literals;

int main(){

  std::cout << std::endl;

  auto schoolHour= 45min;

  auto shortBreak= 300s;
  auto longBreak= 0.25h;

  auto schoolWay= 15min;
  auto homework= 2h;

  auto schoolDayInSeconds= 2 * schoolWay + 6 * schoolHour + 4 * shortBreak + longBreak + homework;

  cout << "School day in seconds: " << schoolDayInSeconds.count() << endl;

  duration<double, ratio<3600>> schoolDayInHours = schoolDayInSeconds;
  duration<double, ratio<60>> schoolDayInMinutes = schoolDayInSeconds;
  duration<double, ratio<1, 1000>> schoolDayInMilliseconds = schoolDayInSeconds;

  cout << "School day in hours: " << schoolDayInHours.count() << endl;
  cout << "School day in minutes: " << schoolDayInMinutes.count() << endl;
  cout << "School day in milliseconds: " << schoolDayInMilliseconds.count() << endl;

  cout << endl;



Do you know by heart, which literal, function, or object was defined in which namespace? If not, looking for the definition of a name may become a challenge. This holds, in particular, true, if you are a novice.

Before I end this post, there is one import rule I have to mention: SF.7: Don’t write using namespace at global scope in a header file. Here is the rationale:

A using namespace at global scope in the header injects names into every file that includes that header. This has a few consequences:

  • When you use the header, you can not undo the using directive.
  • The danger of a name collision increases drastically.
  • A change of the included namespace may break your build because a new name was introduced.

What's next?

First, a few rules to the organisation of source files are left. Additionally, we will get modules with C++20. Let's see which affect these significant features has on C++-



Thanks a lot to my Patreon Supporters: Matt Braun, Roman Postanciuc, Tobias Zindl, Marko, G Prvulovic, Reinhold Dröge, Abernitzke, Frank Grimm, Sakib, Broeserl, António Pina, Sergey Agafyin, Андрей Бурмистров, Jake, GS, Lawton Shoemake, Animus24, Jozo Leko, John Breland, espkk, Louis St-Amour, Venkat Nandam, Jose Francisco, Douglas Tinkham, Kuchlong Kuchlong, Robert Blanch, Truels Wissneth, Kris Kafka, Mario Luoni, Neil Wang, Friedrich Huber, lennonli, Pramod Tikare Muralidhara, Peter Ware, Tobi Heideman, Daniel Hufschläger, Red Trip, Alexander Schwarz, Tornike Porchxidze, Alessandro Pezzato, Evangelos Denaxas, Bob Perry, Satish Vangipuram, Andi Ireland, Richard Ohnemus, Michael Dunsky, Dimitrov Tsvetomir, Leo Goodstadt, Eduardo Velasquez, John Wiederhirn, Yacob Cohen-Arazi, Florian Tischler, Robin Furness, and Michael Young.


Thanks in particular to Jon Hess, Lakshman, Christian Wittenhorst, Sherhy Pyton, Dendi Suhubdy, Sudhakar Belagurusamy, Richard Sargeant, Rusty Fleming, and Bhushan Ivatury.



My special thanks to Embarcadero CBUIDER STUDIO FINAL ICONS 1024 Small



I'm happy to give online seminars or face-to-face seminars worldwide. Please call me if you have any questions.

Bookable (Online)


Standard Seminars (English/German)

Here is a compilation of my standard seminars. These seminars are only meant to give you a first orientation.


Contact Me

Modernes C++,







0 #1 Jens Riboe 2019-04-22 13:00
Personally, I strongly disagree with the rule of not do "using namespace xyz".

Using a modern IDE, one always hover with the cursor, CTRL-SHIFT-I or something similar to quickly find out.

Prefixing e.g. a type name like this:
com::ribomation::collections::List lst
just clutters the code and do not add to the readability.

The same holds for easy to recognize identifiers such as:
cout, endl, string and similar.

In addition; I prefer using the file extensions
*.hxx and *.cxx
0 #2 Rainer Grimm 2019-04-23 15:12
Quoting Jens Riboe:
Personally, I strongly disagree with the rule of not do "using namespace xyz".

Using a modern IDE, one always hover with the cursor, CTRL-SHIFT-I or something similar to quickly find out.

But in a class I and my participants don't use a sophisticated editor. We use kate, kwrite, or nedit++.


Prefixing e.g. a type name like this:
com::ribomation::collections::List lst
just clutters the code and do not add to the readability.

The same holds for easy to recognize identifiers such as:
cout, endl, string and similar.
I had a similar opinion but it happens often in my classes that my participants have problems understanding the basic identifiers; therefore, I apply this rule.

In addition; I prefer using the file extensions
*.hxx and *.cxx
I will add both to the post.

My Newest E-Books

Course: Modern C++ Concurrency in Practice

Course: C++ Standard Library including C++14 & C++17

Course: Embedded Programming with Modern C++

Course: Generic Programming (Templates)

Course: C++ Fundamentals for Professionals

Interactive Course: The All-in-One Guide to C++20

Subscribe to the newsletter (+ pdf bundle)

Blog archive

Source Code


Today 2807

Yesterday 5806

Week 2807

Month 172224

All 7440064

Currently are 315 guests and no members online

Kubik-Rubik Joomla! Extensions

Latest comments