>
> The "best we can do" does not imply "good enough". In particular,
> it does not mean "good enough for an IS".


I can't imagine that, as a general statement, anyone disagrees with you.

But whether or not this applies to C++26 Contracts is a matter of opinion;
it can't be asserted (pun possibly intended) as fact.

The consensus is that it is good enough for an IS. That doesn't guarantee
that is. But what tool, more powerful than consensus, do we have?

O.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 17:15, JOSE DANIEL GARCIA SANCHEZ via SG21 <
sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> There is a difference between consensus and majority that should not be
> ignored.
>
> The "best we can do" does not imply "good enough". In particular,
> it does not mean "good enough for an IS".
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 6:00 PM Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 Oct 2025, at 14:36, JOSE DANIEL GARCIA SANCHEZ <
>> josedaniel.garcia_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> saying we discussed this before does not solve the problem.
>>
>>
>> True, it does not solve the problem, but it does mean that the problem
>> has been recognised, acknowledged, the possible approaches to the problem
>> have been discussed, and as result of those discussions we had consensus
>> that what we have in the C++26 working draft today is the best we can do
>> about it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Timur
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> SG21 mailing list
> SG21_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11355.php
>