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

[jmh530]

On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 17:02:41 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I've suggested that one might want to make the function 
> signatures more readable and keep "auxiliary stuff" on a 
> separate line:
>
> https://forum.dlang.org/thread/nzwobsazsawxvxbxhoue@forum.dlang.org
>
> I personally think explicit lifetimes are easier to read, 
> because I don't actually have to remember what keywords signify.
>
> It also makes it possible to expand the capabilities of the 
> compiler over time.

I am sympathetic to this. scope is relatively simple, but once 
you start getting into more combinations it requires a bit of 
mental energy.