On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 20:15, Joshua Berne via Liaison
<liaison@lists.isocpp.org> 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.