User Documentation

Do you not see the dedicated "Return type" line?

I do. It's not good to look at with all the mess it has http://icecream.me/8633fd13e24b9d203af3dfceb057c4ee.

I don't see a mess.

Seriously, this is one of the most pretentious complaints I've seen in a long time.

It's not pretentious. Seriously, don't say it like that otherwise you'll cause unprofessional commotions. CI3's documentation is the only documentation I know that doesn't have this. Even Ionniezell/kilishan agrees with its benefits http://icecream.me/083b9d8273b54a14038f07796adf3ad7.

So, you're entitled to saying whatever you want, but if I reply back in the same manner, it's unprofessional?

You've proposed something that would require non-insignificant effort, without mentioning that it already exists in a different form, but when that's pointed out all you have to say is "not good to look at". Giving zero supporting points in favor of what you want ("others do it" is a well-known fallacy, not a meaningful argument) and zero evidence to support your claim that what we have is not good.
How is that not pretentious? You're literally providing nothing but your own preference.

Here's a real, factually-relevant argument:

Including the return type in the signature itself, would imply that the return type in question is actually declared as such in the framework code, like it is indeed the case with CI4-dev documentation - this condition can obviously never be true in CI3.

We are entitled to everything we say in this forum however, there was literally none, nothing whatsoever and never any intention of giving pretentious suggestions, not even in any insignificant manner like you've mentioned. So yes, your answer was very unprofessional. You can't tell any user in this forum, may he be a junior or senior member, as pretentious, or giving out pretentious complaints like Internet trolls as you've slightly implied, especially when we're here to contribute for the betterment of the CI framework as a whole.

I did mention it's not good to look at and I meant what I said. I did not spend time on those included screenshots for something insignificant. I'm always in the fast lane of deadlines and the current documentation format, does indeed look messy, especially when doing quick glances. I was a designer before I became a programmer and I can tell you in an expert, artistic manner, the formatting is messy. The reason may be relative to me personally however, if it seem fine to you, I can tell you, it is then, also a relatively pretentious claim on your end.

Most modern, strict data-typed frameworks contain the same format I proposed. So how does that make it not a meaningful argument? And for the record, you misunderstood this thread's entire point with your last answer. Clearly this topic is about CI4 documentation. What I proposed was purposefully for CI4 and NOT CI3! That is the reason why this proposal was made --CI3 has no datatypes while CI4 does. If CI4 has data types, then why not provide additional information by including data-types in every method signature lines?

But no matter. I have reverted my code commits as discussed with Ionniezell/kilishan since there aren't any final words on this proposal yet.

Long live CodeIgniter!