Jan,

on Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:25:22 +0200 you (Jan Schultke
<janschultke_at_[hidden]>) wrote:

> The next SG22 (C/C++ Liaison) Telecon is taking place *Wednesday,
> 2026-07-08 04:30 PM - 06:00 PM UTC*.

Unfortunately I will not be able to be there, so I will send comments
to this list on the two papers, starting with

> - 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)

I take it that the question here is only about the interplay with
`assert`.

I appreciate the effort to keep the two tools orthogonal, this would
certainly help user adoption.

The only thing that I am a bit worried with regards to this is the
following sentence

> If the contract-violation handler returns normally or an exception
> escapes the contract- violation handler’s evaluation, the program
> will terminate in an implementation-defined manner

I wouldn't know about exceptions, but for the "returns normally" this
seems to be the wrong strategy. C's `assert` calls `abort` and I think
we should keep it like that.

Not because `abort` is a particularly well-designed feature, but
because people might use `SIGABRT` handlers to trigger some specific
code. So we should not invalidate the tools people already have.

Thanks
Jₑₙₛ

-- 
:: ICube :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: deputy director ::
:: Université de Strasbourg :::::::::::::::::::::: ICPS ::
:: INRIA antenne de Strasbourg :::::::::::::::::: Camus ::
:: INRIA PIQ program Strasbourg :::::::::: piq.inria.fr ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ☎ +33 368854536 ::
:: https://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::