Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 16:09:08 +0000
Because reflection is an expert-only feature that we don’t teach to normal users at all. If you want Contracts to also be an expert-only feature and not featured on most beginner’s textbooks, then I agree that Contracts as it is now is sufficient.
From: SG21 <sg21-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Tom Honermann via SG21 <sg21_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wednesday, 22 October 2025 at 00:06
To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>, Oliver Rosten <oliver.rosten_at_[hidden]>, sg15_at_[hidden] <sg15_at_[hidden]>, Contracts SG21 <sg21_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-sg21] [isocpp-sg15] P3835 -- Different contract checking for different libraries
On 10/21/25 11:47 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 12:20, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I understand the calls for real deployment experience, but I don't understand how is a Contracts TS or whitepaper would help us get that?
> Well, see, it's actually less about what the ship vehicle
> semi-magically (I'm intentionally joking here) does. It's about what
> chance anyone
> has to experiment with the feature before we nail it into an IS.
>
> Let's face it, it's excruciatingly difficult and therefore unlikely
> for so-called third parties to experiment with what we have right now.
> You would
> need to build a fork-branch compiler, and then deploy that and then do
> the actual experimentation. That by nature shuts out quite a bunch of
> users.
The following is intended as a serious question; I'm not intending to
throw shade at other C++26 features.
The only implementation of P2996 reflection is in the same state of
requiring a fork-branch compiler build of Clang. I'm assuming you
consider that implementation sufficient for reflection because I don't
see papers calling for its removal due to lack of deployment experience.
There has been no deployment experience of P2996 reflection. Why is that
sufficient for reflection, but not sufficient for contracts?
Tom.
_______________________________________________
SG21 mailing list
SG21_at_[hidden]
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11633.php
From: SG21 <sg21-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Tom Honermann via SG21 <sg21_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wednesday, 22 October 2025 at 00:06
To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>, Oliver Rosten <oliver.rosten_at_[hidden]>, sg15_at_[hidden] <sg15_at_[hidden]>, Contracts SG21 <sg21_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-sg21] [isocpp-sg15] P3835 -- Different contract checking for different libraries
On 10/21/25 11:47 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 12:20, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I understand the calls for real deployment experience, but I don't understand how is a Contracts TS or whitepaper would help us get that?
> Well, see, it's actually less about what the ship vehicle
> semi-magically (I'm intentionally joking here) does. It's about what
> chance anyone
> has to experiment with the feature before we nail it into an IS.
>
> Let's face it, it's excruciatingly difficult and therefore unlikely
> for so-called third parties to experiment with what we have right now.
> You would
> need to build a fork-branch compiler, and then deploy that and then do
> the actual experimentation. That by nature shuts out quite a bunch of
> users.
The following is intended as a serious question; I'm not intending to
throw shade at other C++26 features.
The only implementation of P2996 reflection is in the same state of
requiring a fork-branch compiler build of Clang. I'm assuming you
consider that implementation sufficient for reflection because I don't
see papers calling for its removal due to lack of deployment experience.
There has been no deployment experience of P2996 reflection. Why is that
sufficient for reflection, but not sufficient for contracts?
Tom.
_______________________________________________
SG21 mailing list
SG21_at_[hidden]
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11633.php
Received on 2025-10-21 16:09:19