DIP1000: Walter's proposal to resolve ambiguity of ref-return-scope parameters

[Walter Bright]

On 11/25/2021 1:07 PM, Dennis wrote:
> My proposal (as mentioned in the issue) is that `return` in any other position 
> than directly before `scope` refers to return-ref, so only `return scope` 
> results in return-scope. Also I think `lazy` and `out` can go, though suggesting 
> to remove a feature tends to bring out people who like the feature and oppose 
> the removal.

I've suggested removing `lazy` already, with the predicted response.