Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 20:08:50 +0300
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 19:47, Ryan McDougall <mcdougall.ryan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Saying P2900 removes UB but... makes it slightly harder for some diagnoses of that UB -- which is IFNDR anyway -- and is therefore "less safe -- full stop!" is... not professionally sound -- to say the least. This mountain/mole-hill/baby/bathwater territory.
P2900 keeps all the possibly surprising behaviors but removes the
ability to reject them. I also fail to see whose statements you think
you are describing.
There are ways to provide contract functionality without such
problems, see https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2025/p3640r0.pdf
>
> Saying P2900 removes UB but... makes it slightly harder for some diagnoses of that UB -- which is IFNDR anyway -- and is therefore "less safe -- full stop!" is... not professionally sound -- to say the least. This mountain/mole-hill/baby/bathwater territory.
P2900 keeps all the possibly surprising behaviors but removes the
ability to reject them. I also fail to see whose statements you think
you are describing.
There are ways to provide contract functionality without such
problems, see https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2025/p3640r0.pdf
Received on 2025-10-14 17:09:06