Re: RFC: Marking return values as important (#[\NoDiscard])

Hi Tim and Volker, I'd be honest, I have a very negative attitude towards this proposal and I'd be voting against it. It seems to me like it's creating a problem and then trying to find a solution for it. A return value is always supposed to be used. If some API is returning a value that can be safely ignored, it's a badly designed API. If a developer forgets to use a return value, a static analysis tool should inform the developer of the mistake. I understand that not all functions are pure like in your example, but adding an attribute doesn't feel like the solution. In fact, it's creating a problem for users who want to ignore the value, which you then propose to solve with (void) cast. My second gripe is the use of E_WARNING and E_USER_WARNING. I am of the opinion that warnings in PHP are a really bad idea. PHP isn't a language like C or C++ where the warnings would show up only during the compilation phase. In PHP warnings are runtime errors. The code should emit an exception instead of a warning. It would also make it much easier to handle and you wouldn't need any special construct to allow users to ignore the new attribute. And I am really not a fan of the PHP engine generating E_USER_WARNING which should be reserved only for warnings triggered by trigger_error. The examples you used don't support the need for the new attribute. Regarding the DateTimeImmutable methods, you said yourself: "The methods are badly named, because they do not actually set the updated value". So your proposal suggests adding a brand new thing to PHP to deal with bad method names? This problem should be solved using static analysers, IDE, and proper code refactoring. Regards, Kamil