Which language futures make D overcompicated?

[Walter Bright]

On 2/10/2018 4:35 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> In summary, the issue is that there is only one 'inout' and therefore it is not 
> properly lexically scoped. It is a bit like having a language where all 
> variables are implicit function parameters and they all have the same, global, 
> name. This sort of works fine until you want a function with two parameters or 
> until you want to nest functions in a non-trivial way.

This needs to be filed on bugzilla. Shall I do it, or do you want to?