Hi Ville,

> On 26 Sep 2025, at 10:24, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Link-time selection of contract evaluation semantics doesn't in and of
> itself require the new technology you seem to be suggesting.

That's interesting. How would you do it without new technology?

> Ville, P3400 is a potential C++29 extension, which is not the topic of discussion here. We're talking about what's in the C++26 working draft, where the contract-violation handler is always global (with the DLL caveat).
>
> I don't know how you determine the topic of the discussion, but when
> someone asks "are per-module or per-TU violation handlers a thing?",
> and
> someone comments "I have no idea where such an idea would come from",
> I think it's rather on-topic to point out that such finer-grained
> violation handlers have been considered and are on the roadmap for Contracts.

Right. That's of course correct. I just wanted to clarify that this idea is a hypothetical C++29 extension and not under consideration for C++26. Apologies if I stroke the wrong tone here.

Cheers,
Timur