On 7/12/21 3:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 20:07, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email
address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch
against master. See attached. The ChangeLog.contracts files list the
sum of changes for the patch, not the full history of the work.
Jonathan, can you advise where the library support should go?
In N4820 <contract> was part of the language-support clause, which makes
sense, but it uses string_view, which brings in a lot of the rest of the
library. Did LWG talk about this when contracts went in? How are
freestanding implementations expected to support contracts?
I don't recall that being discussed, but I think I was in another room
for much of the contracts review.
If necessary we could make the std::char_traits<char> specialization
available freestanding, without the primary template (or the other
specializations). But since C++20 std::string_view also depends on
quite a lot of ranges, which depends on iterators, which is not
freestanding. Some of those dependencies were added more recently than
contracts was reviewed and then yanked out, so maybe wasn't considered
a big problem back then. In any case, depending on std::string_view
(even without the rest of std::basic_string_view) is not currently
possible for freestanding.
I guess I'll change string_view to const char* for now.
I imagine the header should be <experimental/contract> for now.
Agreed.
And the type std::experimental::??::contract_violation. Maybe
contracts_v1 for the inline namespace?
Did you have any thoughts about the violation handler? Is it OK to add
a default definition to the library, in the above namespace?
Jason
