But then in effect it would be

 > - No code to catch, that is the point. UB!

the programmer overrides the specification of the called function.
No code should be emitted to check for/catch exceptions.
If an exception is thrown nevertheless inside the noexcept_casted function, then it would be UB?
 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org>
Gesendet: Mo 05.05.2025 16:03
Betreff: Re: [std-proposals] noexcept has gotten a bit hairy -- I want a compiler error
An: std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org;
CC: Jason McKesson <jmckesson@gmail.com>;
On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 2:45 PM Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
>
>  - it works without check. The exception just wanders to the next level. At the same time we can be noexcept. That is fine.

The context of this conversation is such that `noexcept` has a
(completely) different meaning than it currently has. The OP wants the
compiler to statically verify that no exception throwing happens
*within* a `noexcept` function, not merely that the function itself
cannot allow an exception to pass through it. The point of the cast is
to take a function that isn't marked `noexcept` but will not throw and
tell the compiler that it's OK to call it in a `noexcept` function
(because the OP wants calls to non-noexcept functions to give an
error).

Now yes, this is a problem created only by the OP's insistence on
changing the fundamental meaning of keywords, but that is the core
context of this conversation.
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals