I love mailing list debugging.
And yes, perhaps we should call it "NoCheck" instead of "Ignore".
We've had a really difficult time figuring out how to word the whole thing. Andrzej, you think just removing the [note] bits would work?
I also came to the conclusion that the name "ignore" in the standardese is misleading. In the next revision we will use something like No_eval.
Regarding the note, I know that this is considered a bug in the standardese, if we say the same thing in two places. And I am lacking the expertise to determine if ODR-usage already follows from other rules. In other places, we do not say everywhere that the expression that we see is ODR-used. If someone from CWG would be kind enough to shed some light on this, I would be grateful.
Regards,
&rzej;
On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 19:49, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> That scenario fails to satisfy the "well-formed program" predicate in my original message:
>
> >> Finally, for a well-formed program with well-defined behavior fed with the correct data, ignoring contracts (with diagnostics, if one wishes) would be a correct (if poor quality) implementation.
>
> 😊
"Ignore" starts to seem like a Really Bad Name for this, if you ask me.