Understanding DIP 1000 semantics -- Where's the bug?

[Mike Franklin]

On Sunday, 22 September 2019 at 07:01:42 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe 
wrote:
> I think that taking a reference of a local variable should 
> result in a scope T*.
>
> In that case `&value` in `y ~= getValue1(&value);` should 
> result in a scope int*.

If that's the case then shouldn't Exhibit B (copied below for 
convenience) require getValue2` to be `int getValue2(scope ref 
int i)`?  If not, what's the justification?


// Exhibit B
//--------------------------
int getValue2(ref int i)
{
     return i;
}

int* foo2()
{
     int value;
     int[] y;
     y ~= getValue2(value); // No error
     return &y[0];
}