+1 to what Tom said.

One part of this discussion is speaking as if semantics are assigned
randomly or arbitrarily, where they are assigned by the person who ships
the product - it has been pointed out time and time again that the actor
deploying the application is the final arbiter of what "safe" means for a
given contract check, because it's actually a function of "safe(context) ->
bloom" (where "bloom" is a type with exactly two values of "no" and
"perhaps").

The stakeholder with the best context is the deployer of the application;
the farther away you go from that stakeholder, the less context they have.
Deferring the choice of semantic to as late as possible gives a better
outcome.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 4:33 PM Tom Honermann via SG21 <
sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 17, 2025, at 10:23 AM, Harald Achitz via SG21 <
> sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 
> On 2025-10-17 16:00, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:53 AM Harald Achitz via SG15 <
> sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Today's
>>
>> void fun(Foo* ptr) {
>> my_supper_assert_macro (ptr!=nullpter);
>> my_supper_assert_macro(ptr->hasData());
>> }
>>
>> should not have any problems, ever
>>
>
> AFAIU, if my_supper_assert_macro implements something equivalent to
> observe, that is still UB at present. Or is it EB now?
>
> --
> -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
> -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supongas Nada
> -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
>
>
> On devices that keep you alive, one example where I have seen such super
> asserts in action, contracts are contracts They do not exist only
> sometimes.
>
> Correct, (plain language) contracts are omnipresent. The contract checking
> statements above violate the function contract and are thus defective.
> Static analysis can diagnose such cases. For example, I would expect a
> contracts enabled version of Coverity to report a FORWARD_NULL issue for
> the above code.
>
>
> I am not even sure if contracts as specified would pass regulatory
> requirements, I think not.
>
> I’m not an expert on the subject by any means, but I would expect
> regulatory requirements to consider the manner in which the software is
> built; just as they consider the content of the source code and require
> other supply chain guards. A requirement that deployed software not contain
> portions for which the observe semantic is selected seems reasonable and
> prudent.
>
> Tom.
>
> /Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> SG21 mailing list
> SG21_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11351.php
>