[$] C++26 contract confusion
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has blessed seven C++ language revisions since 1998.
Why am I seeing this Ranked on source trust — LWN
It ranks mainly on source trust: LWN is the most reliable outlet we track on this subject, and is the only one on the story so far.
Single-sourced. No second organisation has confirmed it yet.
Link-outLink-out, because only one organisation carries it and no first-party source is on it. Link-out means we point at the publisher and say nothing of our own.
| Factor | Weight | Score | Contribution | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration | 0.35 | 0.39 | +0.135 27% | 1 independent org on the story. Tier-3 aggregators never corroborate — they can show something is circulating, never that it is true. |
| Source trustleads | 0.25 | 0.85 | +0.212 42% | LWN is the highest-trust source on this story. Trust is taken from the best source, not averaged. |
| Pickup rate | 0.20 | 0.00 | +0.000 0% | One counted organisation, so there is no spread to measure — nothing has picked this up to set a rate. |
| Freshness | 0.20 | 0.79 | +0.158 31% | Halves every 10 hours from the newest item on the story. This is the only factor that rewards a story for nothing more than being recent. |
Corroboration counts distinct organisations, once each, and only from tiers 1 and 2. Freshness halves every 10 hours, so this ranking is a snapshot and will differ at the next build.
Original uploader was Taviso at en.wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons · illustrativeISO rejected the C++26 standard on October 23, marking the first time the organization has declined to ratify a document from Working Group 21. The decision halts progress on what would have been the eighth C++ revision since 1998. The rejection centers on disagreement over a proposed contracts feature designed to embed pre- and post-conditions directly into function signatures.
Working Group 21 develops C++ by evaluating proposed changes, integrating them into a standard document, and submitting the result to ISO for approval. This process has succeeded seven times previously. The contracts mechanism generated enough controversy that ISO's main body voted against ratification rather than accept the standard as presented.
The future of C++26 remains uncertain following the rejection. The standard cannot advance in its current form, and it is unclear how the dispute over contracts will be resolved or whether the feature will be modified, removed, or abandoned entirely.
What happened
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has blessed seven C++ language revisions since 1998. The language is mostly developed by ISO's Working Group 21, which considers proposed additions and amendments, integrates them into a document, and then presents that document to the main ISO body to be voted on as a standard. On October 23, for the first time ever, ISO declined to ratify a document presented by Working Group 21, leaving the future of the C++26 standard in doubt. The decision was driven by controversy around a proposed new "contracts" feature that would add pre- and post-conditions to function signatures.
How this story arrived
Ordered by when each source was first observed, which is what the velocity figure is computed from. Publishers backdate; observed order does not.
- 01 Lwn first seen [$] C++26 contract confusion
Overclock clusters coverage from independent sources and grades it automatically. The figures above are computed, not editorial. This page summarises and links to reporting by the outlets named — follow the links for the original work.