"scope attribute" vs "scope keyword" vs "scope storage class"

[Brad Anderson]

On Wednesday, 5 February 2014 at 15:43:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>
> D documentation has rather incosistent naming for attribute 
> groups.
>
> - scope classes are deprecated, but usage of scope as storage 
> class is still legal (it is expected to be a no-op for now)
>

Couldn't "scope" allocating a class on the stack just be 
considered an optimization that can be applied if the scope 
storage class become fully implemented?

> - scope storage class for function parameters is also accepted 
> as no-op. For delegates it actually has a meaning. No 
> deprecation.
>

No-op just because it hasn't been implemented yet, right?