I'd vote for option 1, given that, as you say, this is closely related to the return type, which putting the macro with the type makes clear.
Also looking at buffer-pool.h in the review, it doesn't look overly noisy to me. On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:59 PM Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > I wanted to poll the Impala community for opinions about style for > declaring functions where the caller is expected to do something with the > return value. > > Ideally we'd be able to declare Status with an attribute that made this > take effect globally, but unfortunately that's not available until C++17. > > So we need to annotate each Status-returning function. The two alternatives > we discussed on this CR (https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/4878/) were: > > #1 - a special macro wrapping Status > > MUST_USE(Status) DoSomethingThatCanFail(int64_t foo, Bar* bar); > > Pros: > * Closely connected to the return type that it affects > * It's easier to search/replace Status with MUST_USE(Status) > > Cons: > * Could get visually noisy if we use it everywhere > > #2 - a macro that gets appended to the declaration: > > Status DoSomethingThatCanFail(int64_t foo, Bar* bar) WARN_UNUSED_RESULT; > > Pros: > * Macro is slightly > * Less visually noisy since it's at the end of the declaration > > What do people think? >
