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

[Dukc]

On Saturday, 19 June 2021 at 14:37:24 UTC, Dennis wrote:
> Those were great in the short term because they minimize the 
> amount of breaking changes when turning on -dip1000. In the 
> long term, all this code relying on accepts-invalid bugs is 
> annoying to fix though.

And the worst of it, the bugs cannot be easily fixed because they 
would break Phobos, as you outlined in the first post of your 
series.

I think it was a mistake to declare Phobos `-dip1000` compilant 
with all those issues still around. I'd much rather have a 
non-Phobos `-dip1000` that behaves as it's supposed to.