On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 21:42, Ryan McDougall <mcdougall.ryan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> And there are existing deployments where it's not desired and not a requirement...

That doesn't mean that hardening should be possible to be turned off
by a contract evaluation semantic choice
applying to other code. Or more in the opposite direction, it doesn't
mean that the choice of a contract evaluation semantic
for other code should turn the hardening off.

> The original sin is thinking that any one engineer knows all domains and anything that doesn't fit their preconceptions is universally wrong.

Funny, you seem to be the only person in this discussion stating that
something is universally wrong, or otherwise I have misunderstood
what you think "patently false" means.

>P2900 has been in development for a long time, and is useful and needed. The idea it's "unsafe" shows a lack of understanding of what that word means.

Oh sure, it's a likely story that the critics of P2900 simply
misunderstand something. In fact, a story so unlikely that it's safe
to say it's patently false.