On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 20:38, Joshua Berne <berne_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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).

Right. I see no pros/cons analysis of my question in the paper. None
of its revisions seem to justify relying on a new standardized macro
from now to the end of time.