I found https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/g/std-proposals/c/9VaHOnP_kPg
and it is rejected. I propose simpler solution that does not require to
change the syntax nor the standard library. Just allow programmer to
declare the public methods of the class.

I strongly support the motivation of the authors. The fundamental problem
of hiding implementation details still present in modern c++ and requres a
cheap and straightforward solution. Forward method declaration can be
easely explained and accepted. It does not break the backward compatibility
of the language in any form.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 21:55 Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 11:51:16 PDT Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 11:41:30 PDT Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > > > You did not address my point. Do we need another method of declaring
> > > > methods that can be called in an object without defining the entire
> > > > object, in the presence of deduced this?
> > >
> > > Deduced this doesn't allow one to keep implementation details fully
> > > private AFAIK.
> >
> > Why not? Can you give a counter-example of what you want to do and isn't
> > possible with them?
>
> Sorry, I missed something important: the deduced this functions are
> declared
> in the body of the class. So they wouldn't solve the request at all.
>
> Anyway, partial class definitions have been discussed before. The OP needs
> to
> look them up and provide answers to any outstanding questions left from
> them.
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
> Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering
>
>
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>