If you’re using the standard library a lot, typing std:: before everything you use from the standard library can become repetitive. C++ provides some alternatives to simplify things, called using statements.
Using declarations
One way to simplify things is to utilize a using declaration statement.
Here’s our Hello world program, with a using declaration on line 5:
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
#include <iostream> int main() { using std::cout; // this using declaration tells the compiler that cout should resolve to std::cout cout << "Hello world!"; // so no std:: prefix is needed here! return 0; } // the using declaration expires here |
The using declaration of using std::cout; tells the compiler that we’re going to be using the object cout from the std namespace. So whenever it sees cout, it will assume that we mean std::cout. If there’s a naming conflict between std::cout and some other use of cout, std::cout will be preferred. Therefore on line 6, we can type cout instead of std::cout.
This doesn’t save much effort in this trivial example, but if you are using cout many times inside of a function, a using declaration can make your code more readable. Note that you will need a separate using declaration for each name you use (e.g. one for std::cout, one for std::cin, etc…).
Although this method is less explicit than using the std:: prefix, it’s generally considered safe and acceptable (when used inside a function).
The using directive
Another way to simplify things is to use a using directive statement. Here’s our Hello world program again, with a using directive on line 5:
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
#include <iostream> int main() { using namespace std; // this using directive tells the compiler that we're using everything in the std namespace! cout << "Hello world!"; // so no std:: prefix is needed here! return 0; } |
The using directive using namespace std; tells the compiler that we want to use everything in the std namespace, so if the compiler finds a name it doesn’t recognize, it will check the std namespace. Consequently, when the compiler encounters cout (which it won’t recognize), it’ll look in the std namespace and find it there. If there’s a naming conflict between std::cout and some other use of cout, the compiler will flag it as an error (rather than preferring one instance over the other).
For illustrative purposes, let’s take a look at an example where a using directive causes ambiguity:
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 |
#include <iostream> namespace a { int x{ 10 }; } namespace b { int x{ 20 }; } int main() { using namespace a; using namespace b; std::cout << x << '\n'; return 0; } |
In the above example, the compiler is unable to determine whether the x in main refers to a::x or b::x. In this case, it will fail to compile with an “ambiguous symbol” error. We could resolve this by removing one of the using statements, or using an explicit a:: or b:: prefix with variable x.
Here’s another more subtle example:
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
#include <iostream> // imports the declaration of std::cout int cout() // declares our own "cout" function { return 5; } int main() { using namespace std; // makes std::cout accessible as "cout" cout << "Hello, world!"; // uh oh! Which cout do we want here? The one in the std namespace or the one we defined above? return 0; } |
In the above example, the compiler is unable to determine whether our use of cout means std::cout or the cout function we’ve defined, and again will fail to compile with an “ambiguous symbol” error. Although this example is trivial, if we had explicitly prefixed std::cout like this:
|
1 |
std::cout << "Hello, world!"; // tell the compiler we mean std::cout |
or used a using declaration instead of a using directive:
|
1 2 |
using std::cout; // tell the compiler that cout means std::cout cout << "Hello, world!"; // so this means std::cout |
then our program wouldn’t have any issues in the first place.
Limiting the scope of using declarations and directives
If a using declaration or using directive is used within a block, the using statement applies only within that block (it follows normal block scoping rules). This is a good thing, as it reduces the chances for naming collisions to occur just within that block. However, many new programmers put using directives into the global scope. This pulls all of the names from the namespace directly into the global scope, greatly increasing the chance for naming collisions to occur (see lesson 2.9 -- Naming collisions and an introduction to namespaces for more information on this).
Best practice
Although many textbooks and tutorials use them liberally, avoid using directives altogether. Using declarations are okay to use inside blocks, where their impact is limited, but not in the global scope.
Cancelling or replacing a using statement
Once a using statement has been declared, there’s no way to cancel or replace it with a different using statement within the scope in which it was declared.
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
int main() { using namespace Foo; // there's no way to cancel the "using namespace Foo" here! // there's also no way to replace "using namespace Foo" with a different using statement return 0; } // using namespace Foo ends here |
The best you can do is intentionally limit the scope of the using statement from the outset using the block scoping rules.
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
int main() { { using namespace Foo; // calls to Foo:: stuff here } // using namespace Foo expires { using namespace Goo; // calls to Goo:: stuff here } // using namespace Goo expires return 0; } |
Of course, all of this headache can be avoided by explicitly using the scope resolution operator (::) in the first place.
 6.13 -- Typedefs and type aliases |
 Index |
 6.11 -- Scope, duration, and linkage summary |
I have a very important question to ask , as I've been following the site for more than half a year though I had taken some breaks I just stumbled upon a book named "Begining C++ through Game programming by Michael Dawson".
I wanted to ask you about the book, and I'm a little doubtful only because the author uses using directive statement "using namespace std" in the global namespace so do you think I should follow the book I mean it's Content is good to apply my knowledge of C++ in practice . Please answer
Hi
I had a post here that I used size_t in my code. nascardriver suggested to change them to std::size_t.
I asked the difference and answer was "- `size_t` is C, `std::size_t` is C++."
Now I'm wondering that there are both int_fast32_t and std::int_fast32_t. While I'm using
and there is
which data type compiler will choose?
At runtime compiler shows int for both
I noticed there are some functions which have the same name like exp ,log ,pow ... what about those?
C++ defines them in the `std` namespace, but requires that the headers are the same as the C headers (eg. <cmath> is the same as &;tmath.h>) (Which don't have namespaces), with some exceptions. The `std` versions might be aliases, or overloads that don't exist in C.
So when you use `std::int_fast32_t`, that's probably an alias for `int_fast32_t`.
While inside a using statement, is it possible to use the scope resolution operator (::) to get outside of the using statement? e.g.,
Wait, the example I gave just won't work, because it's ambiguous.
How about this instead:
Okay I figured some stuff out: using declarations seem to only change that one specific instance; i.e., in the code below, "using foo::printNamespace" only changes 'printNamespace' to 'foo::printNamespace', but '::printNamespace', 'goo::printNamespace', etc., aren't 'prefixed' with 'foo::', but instead just stay the same.
Also interesting is how prefixing with just '::' doesn't really affect it. My guess is that it looks for the namespace inside the global namespace, so it just ends up being the same as looking for the namespace by itself; i.e., "::goo::printNamespace()" looks in the global namespace for 'namespace goo', and then looks inside 'namespace goo' for 'printNamespace()'.
I like this.
Note that,
putting a scope resolution operator without the left operand is useless, if the namespace is not global.
when i try to declare local variable in function main and use using declaration it makes a compile error
why ?
here is my code :
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
namespace math{
int add(int x , int y){
cout << "hello from namespace math" << endl ;
return x + y;
}
int mul(int x , int y){
return x * y;
}
int sub(int x , int y){
return x - y;
}
int divi(int x , int y){
return x / y;
}
}
int add(int x , int y){
cout << "hello from global namespace" << endl ;
return x + y;
}
int main()
{
int add = 5;
using math::add;
cout << add(5,5);
return 0;
}
The variable you named add (int add = 5;) is conflicting with the functions you also named add(). If you changed the name of int add, or comment it out, your program will compile.
I think even after the using declaration "using std::cout", the compiler still can have some difficulty referencing 'cout' to either 'std' or the function 'cout()'. Because when the compiler reaches to 'cout', how can it decide which one to use while there are still two declarations for 'cout' ?
>or used a using declaration instead of a using directive:
then our program wouldn’t have any issues in the first place.
I think [but am not entirely sure] that
makes each mention of 'cout' become 'std::cout'. Therefore, it won't confuse the two: each mention of 'cout' would never refer to the function 'cout()', but rather 'std::cout'.
> The using declaration of using std::cout;
At first it was confusing, the I thought maybe the following could help to be less vague:
The using-declaration of using std::cout;
> The using directive using namespace std;
'of' is missing and how about?
The using-directive of using namespace std;
> If there’s a naming conflict between std::cout and some other use of cout, std::cout will be preferred.
What is the reason behind this?
Can you give an example?
can we change the code to use 'cout' from our user-defined namespace instead of std namespace?
The statement:
“The using declaration using std::cout; tells ...”
Is not as clear to read as it might be, because of the formatting that you’ve chosen. The font for “using declaration using std::cout;” appears (at least on my iPad running Chrome) to be same for all the words. You really have two things, ie, a “using” declaration, and the actual usage in the code “using std::cout;”. It seems like there should be a different formatting for both. I understand that the keyword “using” should be highlighted, but then “declaration” should just be the same ordinary body text. And then the code itself needs its own highlighting.
Does this make sense ? When I read this, on first glance, I thought that the actual line of code was “using declaration using std::cout;”, and I was then doing a double-take because I hadn’t heard of that before. And then the penny dropped !
Totally makes sense. I stuck a word in between the two identically formatted terms to offset them a bit and improve readability. Thanks!
"Rule: Avoid “using” statements outside of a function (in the global scope)."
and
"Suggestion: We recommend you avoid “using directives” entirely."
aren't in those nice colorful windows.
Lesson colored, thanks!
Hey,
So, the conflict in the more subtle example occurs because the global namespace is declared by default by our program(or compiler?who does that by the way?) ,isn't it?As if the compiler has to look into both name spaces. I don't know if it's the case but isn't it more 'tactical' if the compiler looks into the std namespace first and then into the global namespace?
I thought you needed parenthesis to call a function, why would cout confuse the compiler instead of recognizing that it is using the std namespace and not the user-defined function?
You need parenthesis to call a function, but you can use functions without calling them.
The example can never work if `cout` is a function, but the compiler doesn't detect it.
The stupidest thing I can think of is a programmer making a namespace, and then putting a "using directive" in the global scope of his program, which results in the same chances for naming collisions as if he didn't even make the namespace.
Compiling...and...error.
Now the syntax of using "using" in a scope block is a bit confusing to me.
Maybe also because the closest Pascal variant I ever saw is more logical:
Thanks to 'width' the h1 and h2 are part of x.... Now the "using" variant C++ offers wants it INSIDE the block....
In stead of:
I guess enabling "using" in the global scope could be the most logical explanation for this (which "if" or "while" can't do), but still it baffles me... This syntax could haunt me, hahaha ;)
Now I wonder....
Namespace members can access other members of the same namespace without "jeroen::".
Pascal's "with/do" is designed to allow you to quickly access the fields/members of a given record/struct.
C++'s "using" is designed to provide access to all declarations and definitions within a given namespace without the namespace qualifier.
Totally different uses, hence, different syntaxes.
In this example :
include <iostream> // imports the declaration of std::cout
int cout() // declares our own "cout" function
{
return 5;
}
int main()
{
using namespace std; // makes std::cout accessible as "cout"
cout << "Hello, world!"; // uh oh! Which cout do we want here? The one in the std namespace or the one we defined above?
return 0;
}
How can you call a function (cout, the user defined one) without its arguments?, in this case empty ().
Woudnt the compiler throw an error at you?
Hi Jules!
The compiler will error out. It doesn't check the types of @cout and @std::cout. It notices that there are 2 functions/variables with the same name and stops.
If you were to remove the "using namespace std;" line, there'd still be an error (Because cout is missing "()")
Please, can you put all "using" words that you mean the "using" statement between quotes (or italics)? I couldn't understand a few sentences in the first place because of this.
PS: Or if you mean "using" not as a statement, but as a "using declaration", for example, put them also between quotes. (look at the titles)
I italicized the various using-terms, so they're easier to read in context. Thanks for the suggestion.
#include <iostream> // imports the declaration of std::cout
int cout() // declares our own "cout" function
{
return 5;
}
int main()
{
using namespace std; // makes std::cout accessible as "cout"
cout << "Hello, world!"; // uh oh! Which cout do we want here? The one in the std namespace or the one we defined above?
return 0;
}
My doubt is , in the above example, cout should suppose to resolve to std:cout. Why it'll conflict with int cout().
Nope. using namespace std tells the compiler "std::cout" should be referenceable as "cout". Thus, when we call "cout", the compiler doesn't know whether we mean std::cout or our own cout function.
If you want std::cout to take precedence over our own cout inside this function, you should use a using declaration (e.g. using std::cout). Then when the compiler sees cout, it will know that std::cout should take precedence.
In other words, using declarations (e.g. using std::cout) imply a precedence, using directives (e.g. using namespace std) do not.
Thank you so much.
If using std::cout imply a precedence, How will I refer to my own cout() function?
With a global scope operator :: ?
And what if my cout() is declared in another .cpp file
Yes, you can use namespace::cout() where namespace is whatever namespace your cout is in, or ::cout() if your cout is in the global namespace.
It doesn't matter if it's in another file, as long as the current use can see the forward declaration.
HII ALEX ,MY doubt is here "cout" means that is in iostream where cout() this is another function .so it wont give compile error.
#include <iostream> // imports the declaration of std::cout
int cout() // declares our own "cout" function
{
return 5;
}
int main()
{
using namespace std; // makes std::cout accessible as "cout"
cout << "Hello, world!"; // uh oh! Which cout do we want here? The one in the std namespace or the one we defined above?
return 0;
}
Hi why!
Just try to compile it yourself, it doesn't work. Don't use 'using namespace' and give your functions unique names and you'll be fine.
Hi Alex,
In the most recent version of Code::Blocks (17.12), the statement using namespace std is standard for every new file or project you create.
If it really is such bad practice to use a using directive statement with global scope, then why would a IDE like Code::Blocks implement it in its standard template (with global scope)?
Wouldn't it suffice if I refrain from naming any of my objects after anything in the std library?
Below an example of the standard piece of code you get every time you create a project:
On a unrelated note, thanks for the tutorial. It really is one of the best ones out there.
Cheers.
Hi Q!
> why would a IDE like Code::Blocks implement it in its standard template (with global scope)?
I don't know. A lot of IDEs do this. You can change the new project template in Code::Blocks to your liking.
> Wouldn't it suffice if I refrain from naming any of my objects after anything in the std library?
You should definitely do this. But how do you know none of the other code you're using was written with naming conflicts in mind? eg. min and max are common names that cause conflicts from time to time.
Hello nascardriver!
> But how do you know none of the other code you're using was written with naming conflicts in mind? eg. min and max are common names that cause conflicts from time to time.
This is a very good point, did not think of this.
I will just use the scope resolution operator or use a using namespace std in block scope if it makes the code more readable.
Thank you for replying so fast!
A few thoughts here:
1) Yes, it really is bad practice to use "using namespace std" in the global scope (it's more okay at function scope if used judiciously, but personally I avoid it altogether). I'm surprised Code::Blocks does this by default, and I'm not sure what the rationale for doing so would be.
2) While your code might not have a naming conflict now, you can't guarantee it won't with future extensions of the language! So code that compiles today might not compile once you've upgraded your compiler. Using the explicit qualifier avoids these kinds of issues.
Thank you for your reply and clearing this up, no idea why C::B would do this by default either. I'll just be using std:: from now on. Thanks :)