Fragmented declarations

[lrhn]

The enhanced parts and augmentations features makes it easier to contain the implementation details of a class in one file, while defining the signatures in another. Possibly even an implementation guarded by a conditional part directive.

Maybe this can also be achieved by a less complicated feature than the currently proposed augmentations:
"Fragment declarations" are like augmenting declarations in that more than one declaration can exist with the same name in the same library or scope, and they are combined into the actual API and implementation.
Unlike augmenting declarations at most one of the declarations for a function/member can be concrete. All other declarations must be signature declarations which only specify the API (kind, types, capabilities), but no implementation details (body, initializer lists, default values).

That means that there is no need for an augmented feature, since there is no augmented implementation to access.
There is also no way to change an existing implementation, so this is entirely a code management feature, and possibly (using conditional parts) a patch-like feature.
It may not be enough for macros, if they need to augment existing implementation, but it can be enough for manually written modular code, maybe even for some code generation.

(No extra keywords needed, just allowing multiple declarations of the same kind in the same namespace, as long as there is never two concrete declarations for the same thing, and at least one for declarations that cannot be abstract. Can allow, fx, part class Foo on declarations off classes, or similar, which so not declare a superclass. May need new syntax for declaring signatures for static members and constructors, which cannot be abstract today.)

And there is no ordering dependency, not unless two class declarations are both allowed to add mixins.

[tatumizer]

I admit I don't have a mental model of how this all works, and maybe I shouldn't comment, but if the following is silly, I am ready to delete this comment.
Suppose you have a bowl with 2 cups of flour in it. Then somebody else adds 2 eggs. Apparently, the idea is to prepare the dough. Then somebody else adds 1 bottle of perfume. Nobody really knows how all these components add up, and what the goal of the exercise is. True, everybody is just adding stuff, but while adding, they rely on the assumption that no one will later add anything else, and whatever is NOT there at the moment, still won't be there at the end.
Don't know what to make of this. 😕

[lrhn]

The entire point is to allow you to modularize a single library in a type safe way.

With no other features, you don't really need the signature declarations, it's just a way to spread a class over multiple files.

If we include conditional part directives, it's a way to specify a signature, and have a platform dependent implementation which is guaranteed to have that signature.

With code generation, macros or plain, it allows generated code to supply the implementation of an already specified signature, but not the more complicated feature of changing or wrapping existing implementation, which is one of the biggest sources of complexity in the augmentations feature.
So it's basically a slightly scaled back augmentations feature, which still gives me what I need.

[tatumizer]

I see. It's for a single library, where each part is aware of what other parts are doing. 👍

[ykmnkmi]

Would it work the same as the @patch annotations in the SDK? This annotations looks cleaner and easier to use than augmentation.

[tatumizer]

@lrhn:
Having said this ("👍" ), I'm still musing along these lines:
If your "same-library" argument is important (it is!), then what happens with different libraries? Sure, this difference is reflected in the fact that we should use augment in one case, and no augment in the other, but...
Does the keyword augment magically resolve the "dough with perfume" paradox?
If not, then what?
Maybe you can agree that some conditions, restrictions, discipline etc. must be imposed on macro annotations to make them cooperate nicely? (Without some discipline, their "composability" might become a mirage).

[lrhn]

The augment feature is also entirely within a single library, no different in that.

You can locally see the gaps in the implementation, but from the outside you can only see the single unified facade.

[tatumizer]

The augment feature is also entirely within a single library

It's within a library, in a sense that after all macro annotations are applied, the augment declarations find themselves residing in the same library, but the corresponding macros themselves are in different libraries, written by different people, who are not even aware of each other's existence. Your statement would be true if we talked about augmentations with no reference to macros, but they were introduced specifically to address the needs of macros.
(this is probably off-topic here?).