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

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025, at 8:16 AM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Hi > > Am 2025-02-12 22:31, schrieb Larry Garfield: >> I'm still undecided on the RFC overall, but one thing that is >> problematic is the phrasing of the messages. Currently, the messages >> in the attribute are fragments of an English sentence, seemingly >> designed to fit grammatically with a sentence fragment that is coded >> into the engine somewhere but not readily available to developers. > > Yes, the implementation of the error message very closely matches that > of #[\Deprecated] (except that there is no since bit to > insert). > >> From my phrasing I think you can guess my opinion of that. >> >> That is impossible to document cleanly for English speakers. It will >> not translate at all for anyone who is writing in a non-English >> language (which people do). People are going to get it wrong more than >> they get it right, in any language. >> >> Instead, the wording should be structured to be a complete sentence, >> and the built-in message updated to make that logical. That gives the >> developer much more freedom to write a meaningful, >> contextually-relevant message in the language of their choice. > > We're open to adjusting that. Do you have any suggestions? The > implementation of #[\Deprecated] works like it does, because PHP itself > already doesn't end the error messages with a ., as it > appends `in > file.php on line 42`. This makes it inconvenient to have more than one > sentence in an error message, which is why we're struggling with coming > up with something better. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus Just spitballing: "Return value of foo() is not used, on foo.php line 5: <user text here>" Fiddle with the wording as needed, but by having a colon and then the user text, it makes it clear it's a separate statement, and can be as flexible as a statement in your chosen language wants to be. --Larry Garfield