Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 10:32:05 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 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.

That is way to define ownerhsip so that is not a rebutal of my
comment. This makes assumption about ownership, that we may or
may not want;

I think the proposal is sound overall (I haven't try to explore
all special cases scenarios, so it is a reserved yes for now) but
going forward with this before defining ownership is not a good
approach.