What would you do in a case of a large class with many functions that has
an equal amount of noexcept and otherwise default functions?

The amount of boilerplate wouldn't really change, you would just have
multiple ways of tackling the same problem.

A better suggestion would be making class access-specifier labels be able
to be noexcept. Somewhat like this:

```
class A
{
public noexcept:
    void foo();
    void bar();

public:
    void baz();
    void may_throw();

private noexcept:
    void helper();

private:
    int value;
};
```

This will allow you to cleanly separate functions with the noexcept
property from the functions without it.


On Tue, Aug 4, 2026, 15:10 geguji60--- via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> Hello all,
>
> I’d like to propose a small, local extension to the core language:
>
> a class-head noexcept-specifier, analogous to final or explicit .
>
>
> Motivation
>
> noexcept is currently a per-function property. For many types—especially
>
> value types, RAII guards, and low-level utility classes—every member
> function
>
> can and should be noexcept . Today this must be repeated manually, which
> is
>
> verbose, error-prone, and easily forgotten during refactoring.
>
> A class-level specifier would make the intent clear and machine-checkable.
>
>
>
> Semantics (intended)
>
> The noexcept specifier applies only to member functions declared within
> the class-body.
>
> It is non-inheriting and non-deductive.
>
> An explicit noexcept on a member declaration overrides the class-level
> specifier.
>
> Defaulted special members respect the class-level specifier.
>
> The meaning is exactly as if noexcept(true) / noexcept(false) were
> written on each affected declaration.
>
> The specifier does not affect:
>
> base classes,
>
> derived classes,
>
> out-of-line definitions,
>
> non-member functions,
>
> friends.
>
>
> ​Relationship to existing features
>
> Not noexcept(auto) (N4473): no deduction from function bodies.
>
> Not [[noexcept]] : this is a specifier in the grammar, not an attribute.
>
> Similar to final : applies locally to the class, not inherited, affects
> declarations within the class body.
>
> Effect on language rules
>
> noexcept(expr) sees the same result as if the specifier were written
> manually.
>
> Overload resolution, function pointer type, and mangling are unchanged in
> semantics—only the source location of the specifier differs.
>
> No ABI impact beyond what manual noexcept already implies.
>
>
> gauge WG feedback on the general direction.
>
> Thanks,
>
> geguj geguji60_at_[hidden]
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals


>