Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 12 November 2014 04:01, bearophile via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> Dicebot:
>
>> ixid:
>>>
>>> The ship will have sailed by the time it's ready to fly (gloriously mixed
>>> metaphors), this would seem like such a fundamental issue with a big
>>> knock-on effect on everything else that it should surely be prioritized
>>> higher than that? I am aware you're not the one setting priorities. =)
>>
>>
>> It is going to take such long time not because no one considers it
>> important but because designing and implementing such system is damn hard.
>> Prioritization does not make a difference here.
>
>
> I agree it's a very important topic (more important/urgent than the GC, also
> because it reduces the need of the GC). But I think Walter thinks this kind
> of change introduces too much complexity in D (despite it may eventually
> become inevitable for D once Rust becomes more popular and programmers get
> used to that kind of static enforcement).

I agree. scope is top of my wishlist these days. Above RC/GC, or
anything else you hear me talking about.
I don't think quality RC is practical without scope implemented, and
rvalue temps -> references will finally be solved too.
Quite a few things I care about rest on this, but it doesn't seem to
be a particularly popular topic :(

> Regarding the design and implementation difficulties, is it possible to ask
> for help to one of the persons that designed (or watched closely design) the
> similar thing for Rust?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile