Please consider these code:

```

class X {

public noexcept:

      void foo1() noexcept(false); // should it be ill-formed?

      void foo2() const;

public const:

      void foo3() noexcept;

      // are `foo2` and `foo3` easy to read?

public static const:

      int val1 = 0;

      // in the proposal, it equals to:

      // `public: static const int val1 = 0;`

      // but the code is incorrect, even if it seems no problems.

public const virtual:

      void foo4() {

            /* do something doesn't need polymorphism */

      }

      // sometimes some well-formed but not best code will replace the best code while we don't know.

      int val2 = 0;

public const:

      int val3 = 0;

      // there is no difference between the "sections" of `val2` and `val3`, but it is hard to say their "sections" are same.

};

void X::foo3() noexcept { } // forgetting to write down some of the specifiers will be a common problem.

```

what are the reasons for prohibiting those who want to from using this proposal to reduce repetition?

Personally, it doesn't bring much more convenience but brings more troubles in programming.

If I can, I even want to write access specifiers for each member.

--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals