DIP1000: 'return scope' ambiguity and why you can't make opIndex work

[Per Nordlöw]

On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 17:00:14 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> I strongly believe we should implement DIP1000 in an expressive 
> manner, instead of relying on confusing conventions -- just 
> make a type constructor to signify lifetime management and be 
> done.

Yes, I'm thinking about that too. I wonder if there's a 
performance penalty for such an expressive management we are 
currently not paying for.