DIP1000: The return of 'Extend Return Scope Semantics'

[tsbockman]

On Wednesday, 26 May 2021 at 12:36:42 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 22:19:23 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 11:46:12 UTC, kinke wrote:
>>> Good overview, thanks for the post. If we don't really need a 
>>> generic solution for that, i.e., can expect new code to use 
>>> the first param and `move` to be the only problematic 
>>> existing code,
>>
>> This sounds like a really annoying and arbitrary limitation.
>
> It's not arbritrary at all - the purpose is to avoid this:
>
> https://carols10cents.github.io/book/ch10-03-lifetime-syntax.html#lifetime-annotations-in-function-signatures

Why must it always be the first parameter, instead of always 
being the last parameter, etc.? The choice of **which** parameter 
gets special treatment is arbitrary, and is the part I was 
complaining about because of how it interacts with UFCS.