C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C?

From: Robert Seacord <rcseacord_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 10:28:52 -0400
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 10:06 AM Timur Doumler via Liaison <
liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 6 Oct 2023, at 16:35, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> So it would be very helpful to have some kind of SG22 poll or decision or
> record of consensus (or however you do these things!) to say one of three
> things: "SG22 wants the attribute-like syntax" or "SG22 wants the P296
> syntax" or "SG22 is officially undecided".
> Sorry, there's a typo: "P296 syntax" -> "P2961 syntax"

 Why would this be helpful? You think we can't change our minds? 😂

I think the consensus is P2961-like syntax. Attributes aren't viable for
this from a C perspective.

I think spelling out the keywords like Jens suggested is a good idea. It's
2023, people need to know how to type.


Received on 2023-10-06 14:29:05