On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 at 00:40, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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.

When I was writing papers related to noexcept(auto), what I did not
find is evidence supporting
the suggestion that it is "rather common", in the grand scheme of things.