Why is `scope` planned for deprecation?

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 13:29:00 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
> Unfortunately for your sanity, this isn't going to happen.  
> Similarly unlikely is multiple pointer types, which Walter has 
> repeatedly shot down.  I'd suggest bringing it back up if and 
> when discussion of D3 begins in earnest.

D needs to start to focus on providing an assumption free system 
level programming language that supports the kind of modelling 
done for system level programming.

I am not sure if adding templates to D was a good idea, but now 
that you have gone that route to such a large extent, you might 
as well do it wholesale with better support for templated SYSTEM 
programming would make sense. Make it your advantage. (including 
deforesting/common subexpression substitution, constraints 
systems etc)

As an application level programming language D stands no chance. 
More crutches and special casing will not make D a system level 
programming language. Neither does adding features designed for 
other languages geared towards functional programming (which is 
the antithesis of system level programming).

Yes, it can be done using a source to source upgrade tool.

No, attribute inference is not a silver bullet, it means changes 
to libraries would silently break applications.

Yes, function signatures matters. Function signatures are 
contracts, they need to be visually clear and the semantics have 
to be easy to grok.

No, piling up low hanging fruits that are not yet ripe is not a 
great way to do language design.