Agreed. I included the contrast between contracts tooling and modules
tooling to convince people to expend the necessary effort, not to convince
people to skip the step as trivial or unimportant.

Bret

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023, 10:28 Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>