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 imagine the header should be <experimental/contract> for now. Agreed.
