Hi Ville,

> On 20 Oct 2025, at 15:34, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> 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@lists.isocpp.org
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg21
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg21/2025/10/11556.php