The [[nodiscard]] attribute introduced in C++17 standard, and in case of the
... potentially-evaluated discarded-value expression,..., implementations are encouraged to issue a warning in such cases.
Source: n4659, C++17 final working draft.
Similar phrasing is used on cppreference, that in case of "violation":
the compiler is encouraged to issue a warning.
Why is the word encouraged used instead of required? Are there situations (except, the explicit cast to void) when a compiler is better off not issuing a warning? What is the reason behind softening the standard language in the particular case of relatively safe requirement to issue a warning no matter what (again, except, say, explicit cast to void)?
The C++ standard specifies the behavior of a valid C++ program. In so doing, it also defines what "valid C++ program" means.
Diagnostics are only required for code which is ill-formed, code which is syntactically or semantically incorrect (and even then, there are some ill-formed circumstances that don't require diagnostics). Either the code is well-formed, or it is ill-formed and (usually) a diagnostic is displayed.
So the very idea of a "warning" is just not something the C++ standard recognizes, or is meant to recognize. Notice that even the "implementations are encouraged to issue a warning" statement is in a non-normative notation, rather than a legitimate specification of behavior.