C++ Logo


Advanced search

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

From: Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 17:32:23 +0300
> On 6 Oct 2023, at 17:28, Robert Seacord <rcseacord_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 10:06 AM Timur Doumler via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden] <mailto: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".
> Why would this be helpful? You think we can't change our minds? 😂

It would be helpful at this stage because when we discussed P2961 in SG21 (Contracts study group) last time, they told us "find out what the C people think about this syntax, and come back" so that's what I'm trying to do. And it would sound better if we could say "SG22 said..." instead of "four people on the SG22 reflector said..."

Does that make sense?


Received on 2023-10-06 14:32:26