On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 at 16:27, Alejandro Colomar <
une+cxx_std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>
> On 2026-02-19T16:03:26+0100, Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > What OP proposes could also be done separately from static analysis as a
> > compiler flag that requires the compiler to prove all contracts hold.
> This
> > essentially turns contract_assert into OP's compile_assert when the
> > semantic is ignore. In any case, I think contracts are the right way to
> > express conditions that should hold.
>
> I think contracts would have been less necessary with this feature.
> And in C, we certainly don't want contracts, while this API would be
> very nice.
>

Well, there are some WG14 papers dealing with contracts. Never say never,
right?

Also, I don't think that having this feature would have made contracts less
necessary. None of the current contract evaluation semantics do what OP is
asking for. However, it would be possible to add a fifth "proof" contract
evaluation semantic, one step up from ignore. That makes it seem to me like
what OP proposes provides additional motivation for contracts in their
current state, since our C++26 design could be extended to provide
everything OP is asking for.


> You can implement "contracts" by wrapping functions in macros, and using
> this API to enforce conditions.
>

Contracts can do a lot more. Notably, they let you specify function
contracts on declarations, not just in the body. That would interoperate
excellently with what OP proposes.