Hi,

https://rallly.co/invite/7XvCIZTXM5PM

Please remember to participate in this poll so we can find a good time for
the next telecon. We are still missing some responses from authors and SG22
regulars. If you've been BCC'd on this email it's because you've
participated in recent SG22 meetings, so you may have an interest in this
one :)

The current best time slots are:

   - Wed 2026-07-08 04:30 PM UTC
   - Wed 2026-07-08 06:00 PM UTC

If there are no further poll responses, it's going to be one of these two
slots.


Yours
Jan

On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 11:52, Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> *https://rallly.co/invite/7XvCIZTXM5PM
> <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
> <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2026/p3290r4.pdf> Integrating
> Existing Assertions with Contracts (Joshua Berne, Timur Doumler, John Lakos)
> - P3093R0
> <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p3093r0.html> 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 <https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/2212>) for
> inclusion in C++29. The paper notably assumes that in WG14, N3658
> <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3658.htm> 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
> <https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D4234R1.html#wording-option-1> (see Issue
> #2792 · cplusplus/papers <https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/2792>) ,
> 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
>