Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:40:53 -0300
On Monday, 9 June 2025 17:57:41 Brasilia Standard Time Andrey Semashev via
Std-Proposals wrote:
> Adding support for noexcept(auto) would not remove noexcept(bool), so
> one can continue marking functions noexcept(bool) as they did before.
> But the use case where one wants to just forward noexcept-ness is rather
> common and would be served by noexcept(auto).
Indeed it is. But noexcept(auto) has been discussed before and any new
proposal about it should address the concerns raised before. I don't see any
of that here.
The difference here appears to be to limit it to lambdas and the move
constructor. IMO, that's going to make the proposal even less palatable.
Std-Proposals wrote:
> Adding support for noexcept(auto) would not remove noexcept(bool), so
> one can continue marking functions noexcept(bool) as they did before.
> But the use case where one wants to just forward noexcept-ness is rather
> common and would be served by noexcept(auto).
Indeed it is. But noexcept(auto) has been discussed before and any new
proposal about it should address the concerns raised before. I don't see any
of that here.
The difference here appears to be to limit it to lambdas and the move
constructor. IMO, that's going to make the proposal even less palatable.
-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Principal Engineer - Intel Platform & System Engineering
Received on 2025-06-09 21:40:56