On 11/17/23 7:28 AM, Bret Brown via SG15 wrote:
> If there was a big mistake in standardizing modules, it was in not
> getting experience in the practical matters of adopting modules,
> including building and packaging them, before changing the language
> standard. In the future, language proposals that have implications for
> the C++ ecosystem should include experience reports that demonstrate
> impact (or lack thereof) on relevant parts of existing C++ tools like
> build systems, package managers, and analyzers. I would put contracts
> in that category of language proposal, though I believe its demands on
> the C++ ecosystem would be less substantial than what we are seeing
> with modules.
>
This exactly.

I agree that the impact of contracts will be less substantial than
modules. But that should not be a reason for WG21 to not do a better job
of analyzing and understanding the ecosystem impact than it did with
modules.

Tom.