Hi Andrew,   actually, there is a difference between inconditions on the one hand and preconditions, postconditions and invariants on the other hand that inconditions only have to be true at a point within the function and the other three are visible from outside the function and thus belong to the function 'contract'.   Perhaps you could write a paragraph about why inconditions should have the same syntax and should be named similarly (instead of 'assertion') to pre- and postconditions. And show that the differences in usage compared to the commonalities still warrant the same syntax and the differences in meaning still stay clear to the programmers using those keywords.   Even if the proposal focuses on the syntax, one should mention, what is meant by those conditions. At least refer to one of the many other contract papers for semantics or mention that it would work with all proposed semantics (is this true?).   Best, Sebastian   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Andrew Tomazos via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:So 04.12.2022 09:09 Betreff:[std-proposals] D2737R0: Proposal of Condition-centric Contracts Syntax Anlage:D2737R0_ Proposal of Condition-centric Contracts Syntax.pdf An:sotrdg sotrdg via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>; CC:Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos_at_[hidden]>; Please find attached:       D2737R0: Proposal of Condition-centric Contracts Syntax      https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2737R0.pdf  Feedback appreciated.  Regards, Andrew.   -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals