Hi Tim, Thank you for your reply and for the clarification. As one of the RFC authors, your insight is very helpful.
I now have a much clearer understanding of the RFC's intent. Your point that #[NoDiscard] is not meant for every pure function, but rather for those where ignoring the return value leads to dangerous, hard-to-detect bugs, makes perfect sense. I agree that focusing the runtime check on high-risk functions, while leaving most pure functions to static analysis, is a reasonable approach. Based on that criterion, I understand that very few built-in functions should be marked with #[NoDiscard]. To give some context, my initial proposal was motivated by the ongoing confusion around the semantics of the #[Pure] attribute in the JetBrains stubs for static analysis. I had hoped that marking more built-in functions with #[NoDiscard] could help clarify the situation, but I now see that this is not the appropriate goal for this attribute. https://github.com/JetBrains/phpstorm-stubs/pull/1730 It seems a different approach is needed to solve that particular problem for static analyzers. Thanks again for your time and the explanation. Best regards, Kenta -- ヾ(〃＞＜)ﾉﾞ☆ Kenta Usami (宇佐美健太) github.com/zonuexe ; https://tadsan.github.io/
