This is an exposition-only name, so we could editorially rename this, but I'd like to have buy-in from LWG before doing so.
@jwakely and @CaseyCarter , what's your viewpoint?

I can't find proof to thinking that maybe it was decided not to rename this one.

P1754 largely ignored exposition-only concepts since it wasn't crucial to get their naming correct for C++20. I agree that no-throw-sentinel-for is an improvement in consistency with the normative concept names.

Works for me. We could also drop the hyphen in no-throw for consistency with numerous type traits.

Works for me. We could also drop the hyphen in no-throw for consistency with numerous type traits.

If you can convince the editor that "nothrow" is one word instead of two, I won't stand in your way ;) (Serious response: I'm fine with this suggestion as well - it's better to be consistently wrong than inconsistently sometimes right.)

Opened #4101 for the no-throw renaming.