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

[Mike Franklin]

On Sunday, 22 September 2019 at 10:09:14 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe 
wrote:

>> 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?
>
> scope only works on pointers.
>
> ---
> @safe:
>
> // Exhibit B
> //--------------------------
> struct P(T) {
>     T t;
> }
>
> alias Value1 = P!(int);
> alias Value2 = P!(int*);
>
> Value1 getValue1(ref Value1 v) { return v; }
> Value2 getValue2(ref Value2 v) { return v; }
>
> void foo2()
> {
>     scope Value1 value1;
>     scope Value2 value2;
>     getValue1(value1); // No error
>     getValue2(value2); // Error: scope variable value2 assigned 
> to non-scope parameter v calling onlineapp.getValue2
> }
> ---

I wouldn't say that `scope` only works for pointers, but rather 
`scope` only works for references (i.e. pointers and `ref` 
types).  The issue is that `ref int i` behaves differently than 
`int* i`.  I understand that scope doesn't make any sense for 
something like `int i` because it's not a "reference type" (for 
lack of a better term).