From colleagues in various national bodies, it's very political since it's about "taste" for various features rather than e.g. bug fix in the standard which is fundamentally neutral.
Would myself (not in the committee) argue that contracts as is would most probably be relegated to modules support hell in terms of support and implementation variations, and I think it's in everyone's interest not to repeat that.
The fact that contracts allow non pure functions to be called is just begging to be a large source of bugs to be. I think that if they started with pure functions, then in future standards mechanised some way to call non pure functions? Would be better and more accepted.
Just like reflection, instead of being overly encompassing, we were given at least the beginning to something great. (Though I dislike some syntax and utility functions, as well as the bareness of some reflection, e.g. can't reflect on templates, other than is it a template.)
Would myself (not in the committee) argue that contracts as is would most probably be relegated to modules support hell in terms of support and implementation variations, and I think it's in everyone's interest not to repeat that.
The fact that contracts allow non pure functions to be called is just begging to be a large source of bugs to be. I think that if they started with pure functions, then in future standards mechanised some way to call non pure functions? Would be better and more accepted.
Just like reflection, instead of being overly encompassing, we were given at least the beginning to something great. (Though I dislike some syntax and utility functions, as well as the bareness of some reflection, e.g. can't reflect on templates, other than is it a template.)