Off the top of my head, the number one thing I'd like SG15 to review (and the reason why I always intended to reach out to SG15 and ask them to review the Contracts MVP) is the fact that the contract semantic is implementation-defined and that we give implementations freedom to make that choice at compile time, link time, or even runtime, and even recommend two build modes (and which one of them should be the default) even though we do not do that normatively.

Basically, I would like them to review P2877 (which is now part of the Contracts MVP) and its implications. That paper derives a lot of its motivation from tooling concerns so I'd feel a lot more comfortable if it had the seal of approval from the actual tooling folks.

Cheers,
Timur

> On 9 Nov 2023, at 13:49, Ville Voutilainen via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 01:45, Tom Honermann via SG21
> <sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> My intent is to start identifying things to think about. Preloading the cache as it were. I don't see a need to block this on either feature completion of the MVP nor a presentation of it to SG15.
>>
>> So, yes, I'm very much ok with that general plan. I just want to leave as much runway as possible for consideration of SG15 concerns.
>
> Are there specific SG15 concerns?
>
> If you would be tasked to give a presentation to SG15 on what we
> currently have cooking, what would you present them, when almost
> everything
> is undecided, and the MVP, wherever it is, is not up to date?
>
> I don't know how to preload this cache at this point, and I daresay
> I'm rarely so stymied.
> _______________________________________________
> SG21 mailing list
> SG21_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2023/11/5395.php