[Rene]

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

I don’t know the answer; do you?


  * 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?

I don’t know if it would be strange to say; but it is definitely strange to my ears to hear it without further elaboration.

-- Gaby

From: SG15 <sg15-bounces_at_[hidden]rg> On Behalf Of René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via SG15
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 1:18 PM
To: sg15_at_lists.isocpp.org
Cc: René Ferdinand Rivera Morell <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>; SG21 - Contracts <sg21_at_[hidden]>; John Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-sg15] [isocpp-sg21] P3835 -- Different contract checking for different libraries

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 2:35 PM John Spicer via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]<mailto: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<http://robot-dreams.net/>