For what is worth, some other large features in previous releases of the
standard went through a TS process.

In such cases, the features received substantial modifications before going
into the standard.

That was beneficial both for the feature and for the C++ community.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 7:53 AM Timur Doumler via SG21 <
sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Ville,
>
> > On 20 Oct 2025, at 15:34, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_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.
>
> I agree that it would be good to have objective criteria for determining
> that. Are there any particular criteria that other, similarly sized
> language features we standardised in the past decade have successfully met,
> but contract assertions do not meet? Such as: are there other features that
> have been implemented in more compilers, tested on more/larger real-world
> code bases, scrutinised by WG21 more thoroughly, etc, *before* becoming
> part of the IS? Perhaps there are other criteria you are looking for,
> please feel free to name them too.
>
> Timur
> _______________________________________________
> SG21 mailing list
> SG21_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11556.php
>