On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 20:02, Oliver Rosten
<oliver.rosten_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I think it's fair to say that you've expressed similarly blunt sentiments in the text of several of your papers.

I was merely correcting a mythconception, with the intent of all of us
making an effort to improve over time.

> Perhaps dialling down the rhetoric rather than pumping it up might allow us to reach the productive conclusion that Tom suggests.

It might indeed. Where do I go to read the intent on the
well-formedness (in the conformance sense, not in the sense of what
implementations can do with diagnostics) of different selections of
contract evaluation semantics,
and in particular the part that that well-formedness should be
implementation-defined? 3.5.11 Mixed Mode in
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p2900r14.pdf
seems to fall short.