[Ryan]

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

Oh brother, I am there with you :-)

-- Gaby

From: SG21 <sg21-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Ryan McDougall via SG21
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 2:42 PM
To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Ryan McDougall <mcdougall.ryan_at_[hidden]>; sg15_at_[hidden]; sg21_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [isocpp-sg21] [isocpp-sg15] P3835 -- Different contract checking for different libraries

And there are existing deployments where it's not desired and not a requirement...
The original sin is thinking that any one engineer knows all domains and anything that doesn't fit their preconceptions is universally wrong. 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.

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:28 AM Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]<mailto:ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 21:24, Ryan McDougall <mcdougall.ryan_at_[hidden]<mailto:mcdougall.ryan_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> I think the next line is suggestive: "standard library hardening must be allowed to be turned on regardless of what the evaluation semantics of contracts in the rest of the program and even in the same TU are." -- this is patently not true:

It's patently true. There are existing deployments where it's desired
to the point of being a requirement that all use of the standard
library is hardened, regardless of whether
your program is.