[Timur]

  * [...] 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.

If you keep saying that despite sustained objections from growing corners, all you're doing is putting out and reinforcing the impression that WG21 has grown out of touch from its userbase and its output should be disregarded. That brings the question: what is the value of a standard that is regarded in practice?

-- Gaby

From: SG21 <sg21-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Timur Doumler via SG21
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 9:01 AM
To: JOSE DANIEL GARCIA SANCHEZ <josedaniel.garcia_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]>; SG21 Contracts <sg21_at_[hidden]>; sg15_at_[hidden]; Daniela Engert <dani_at_[hidden]>; Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-sg21] [isocpp-sg15] P3835 -- Different contract checking for different libraries


On 17 Oct 2025, at 14:36, JOSE DANIEL GARCIA SANCHEZ <josedaniel.garcia_at_[hidden]<mailto: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