It seems I broke the link to P4234 by marking it as ready for the next
mailing. Sorry about that, here's the new link:
https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P4234R1.html

While EWG voted in favor of wording option 1, it was noted that some
of the votes against option 3 were over divergence concerns. If WG14
has no concerns with making a similar change, I'm happy to take it
back to EWG and ask for another poll on this - that's what I want to
discuss with this group.


Best regards
Matthias Wippich

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 11:52 AM Jan Schultke
<janschultke_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> https://rallly.co/invite/7XvCIZTXM5PM Please participate in this poll (especially the authors) for the date and time of the next SG22 (WG14/WG21 Liaison) telecon in July. Note that doodle has made their polls a premium feature, so we're forced to switch to another (similar service).
>
> On the agenda, we have:
>
> P3290R4 Integrating Existing Assertions with Contracts (Joshua Berne, Timur Doumler, John Lakos)
> P3093R0 Attributes on expressions (Giuseppe D'Angelo)
>
> Furthermore, a notable development from Brno is that P3568R2 (break label; and continue label;) was forwarded from EWG to CWG (see Issue #2212 · cplusplus/papers) for inclusion in C++29. The paper notably assumes that in WG14, N3658 will make further progress. The C++ design is identical to the C2y design, with the relaxed semantics from N3658 implemented. P3568R2 should still be seen by SG22 during a subsequent telecon, but you should be aware that this is ongoing. It is very important to members of the C++ committee that the C and C++ features remain aligned.
>
> Also, EWG voted in favor of D4234R1 Wording Option 1 (see Issue #2792 · cplusplus/papers) , which would make dollar signs in identifiers an optional feature. We will also see this paper in a subsequent telecon. The paper has not yet been forwarded for inclusion in C++29.
>
>
> Yours
> Jan Schultke