Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 13 November 2014 19:56, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 09:29:22 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> Are you guys saying you don't feel this proposal is practical?
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/User:Schuetzm/scope
>>
>> I think it's a very interesting approach, and comes from a practical
>> point of view. It solves the long-standings issues, like scope return
>> values, in a very creative way.
>>
>
> You need to define ownership before defining borrowing.

I don't think this proposal has issues with that.
The thing at the root of the call tree is the 'owner'. Nothing can
escape a scope call-tree, so the owner or allocation policy doesn't
matter, and that's the whole point.