On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 1:33 PM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 20:15, Joshua Berne via Liaison
> <liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I'm going to actually update the paper to change the proposed
> control macro to __STDC_WANT_ASSERT_USES_CONTRACTS__, with rationale and
> precedent. (The paper and compiler explorer will both be updated some time
> tonight).
> >
> > It would be good to get SG22 to poll on that macro name (or similar
> alternative) as input into the eventual LEWG discussion on the topic.
>
> What paper explains the rationale for relying on this macro, as
> opposed to, say, leaving the choice of whether assert() invokes a
> contract
> violation handler implementation-defined?
>

The paper that is on the agenda for discussion in this telecon, P3290?

A topic that was also discussed and explicitly polled when R0 was presented
in SG21 in St. Louis.

You can find the current draft (which i linked to on this thread) here:
https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D3290R5.pdf (Although I haven't uploaded
the changed control macro yet).