Hi all,

in preparation for the discussion on Friday, these are the questions that
the Contracts Study Group would like to get feedback on and the questions
we will ask in the call :

1. Is there interest in standardising Contracts for C in a way that is
compatible with the Contracts for C++ feature that we are currently
designing in SG21? (P2900R1 <https://wg21.link/p2900r1>)

2. Is there any preference, from the C perspective, for choosing the syntax
proposed in P2935R3 <https://wg21.link/p2935r3> ("attribute-like syntax")
or the syntax proposed in P2961R1 <https://wg21.link/p2961r1> ("natural
syntax") for this feature?

3. Are there any C-specific technical concerns with either of these two
syntax proposals?

See you virtually on Friday,
Nina



On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 17:53, Nina Dinka Ranns <dinka.ranns_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> we will have an SG22 discussion of the two currently proposed C++ Contract
> syntax options on Friday, the 27th of October at 12:00 EDT/17:00 BST/18:00
> UTC+2
>
> Zoom details :
> https://iso.zoom.us/j/96163983943?pwd=ZXpTRmVWb0oweGx3b0gwYzBaeEdqZz09
>
> You should be able to join via the link without a passcode. I will send
> the passcode in a separate email.
> Please do not publicly share the link as this is an ISO meeting and only
> open to the ISO members.
>
> Whether you already gave feedback on this mailing list or not, we would
> appreciate your participation in the meeting. It allows us to better
> reflect the views and opinions of SG22 members (more specifically, those
> involved in WG14), and to get a more accurate feeling of what the group
> thinks.
>
> The papers we will discuss are :
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P2935R3.pdf
>
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P2961R1.pdf
>
> Any questions, please let me know.
>
> Best,
> Nina
>