On 10/14/25 1:51 PM, Ville Voutilainen via SG15 wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 20:28, Ryan McDougall <mcdougall.ryan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> C++ is practically defined by its list of surprising behaviours -- this is not new, nor a bar for rejecting an otherwise full, well founded, and desired proposal. It is making a mountain out of a molehill, so the baby can be out with the bath water. P3640 is neither full nor well founded.
> It's splendidly well-founded on what hardened stdlib implementations
> do, and also on things like
> https://bsky.app/profile/chandlerc.blog/post/3m35db54rcc2a

Unless I'm missing something, Chandler is arguing that assertions should
be enabled by default. I'm not aware of anything in P2900 or the C++26
CD that prevents that. It is good advice. There has been plenty of
advocacy for use of an enforcing semantic by default. The status quo is
that such decisions are left to implementors.

In my opinion, P3640 is harmful in that it requires programmers to make
decisions regarding how the assertions they write will be handled. I
support giving programmers the option to require an enforcing semantic,
but I don't want what P3640 is proposing.

Tom.

>
>> While adding new complexity to C++ that could surprise some is regrettable, the idea that it is "less safe -- full stop!" is professionally inexcusable hyperbole.
> I suppose we have to agree to disagree on that.
> _______________________________________________
> SG15 mailing list
> SG15_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg15