On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:15 PM andrei--- via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

Good afternoon,

Thanks for the VERY useful insight into the programming-by-contract work.

I don't see why the "group #1" wants to continue after a contract violation - it's like trying to call "double sqrt(double x) require: x >= 0 { ... }" as "sqrt(-1)" - the obvious choice would be to throw something like "bad_contract" on a violation (which should then never be "checked"). I'll read up on this subject further, so thanks again.

FYI, "throw an exception of type bad_contract, which can be caught higher up" is the very definition of "continue running the program after a contract violation."

If you want to stop running after a contract violation, then you have to actually halt the program; you can't say "let's just jump over here and keep going."

–Arthur