Hi John,

I'm not convinced by this:

No, it is not a pre-existing problem.
> Other than contracts, if you end up with different function definitions it
> is an ODR violation and your program is IFNDR and can be rejected by your
> tools.


There's a difference between "can be in principle" and "is in general
practice". Is it not the case that, in most instances, for all practical
purposes there is no difference between an ODR violation that's IFNDR and
the contracts mixed-mode: you get what the linker gives you?

O.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 14:34, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 16:22, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Right. So, as I tried to explain in an earlier email, this discussion is
> essentially just about the question what the default syntax (no labels)
> should mean?
>
> It's about what constitutes a standalone package with good enough
> pros/cons that that's worthy of nailing to the door as an IS to be
> used for years.
> And how we determine what's good enough, and with what plausibility.
>