On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 2:35 PM John Spicer via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>
> Just for arguments sake, lets call the what is currently in the WP “not
> great contracts”, and that there potentially exists another feature that
> we’ll call “great contracts”.
>
> “not great contracts” would potentially block “great contracts” because it
> would have already taken up the syntax space that “great contracts” might
> want to use.
>

Is that in the same sense that current "not gerat modules" blocked a
potential "great modules" feature?

If you want contracts, it would be very strange to have some shadow group
> working on a competing proposal to whatever it is that SG21 might produce
> without knowing in advance what SG21 would produce, and it would be bad
> faith to not try to make the SG21 product as good as possible and instead
> work on something else.
>

Is it strange to say.. If you want memory safety in C++ would it be "bad
faith" to work on a "profiles" proposal after a "Safe C++" implementation
was presented?

-- 
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supongas Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net