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

[Bradley Chatha]

On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 17:02:41 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> 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.

Being able to perform explicit, sort of 'algebra-esque' 
expressions of lifetime seems like a much more reasonable idea 
than the current magical keyword combinations.

What are the chances though that the path/syntax can be changed 
at this point though, mostly in regards to convincing people? Not 
just for this suggestion, but any suggestion/criticism towards 
DIP 1000 in general?

My main worry is that we'll end up with an inflexible, hard to 
understand system that doesn't even do the job right. Yet another 
tacked on feature for the language, etc.

I've not been terribly optimistic for a quite a while now about 
the general direction things like this end up going, so I'm not 
getting my hopes up in anyway.