Joshua,

on Sat, 4 Jul 2026 17:47:00 -0400 you (Joshua Berne
<berne_at_[hidden]>) wrote:

> The primary purpose of the assert() integration is to replace the
> diagnostic output with a call to the violation handler, not to change
> other behavior --- so I agree, explicitly calling abort() if the
> violation handler completes (either through throwing an exception or
> returning normally) is the right solution.
>
> I have updated the paper to reflect this:
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D3290R5.pdf

Thanks, looks good.

Another thing has been comming to my mind about the name of the macro
which you have as `ASSERT_USES_CONTRACTS`, here. I think that for C it
would be important that this would use a reserved name, otherwise this
feature would interact with code that already (validly) use that
name. (Unlikely, but C is picky on these kind of questions for newly
introduced identifiers.)

So it would be better to use a `__` or `STD` prefix for that.

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 ::