RFC: scope and borrowing

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 13 September 2014 at 01:49:05 UTC, Manu via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12 September 2014 18:06, via Digitalmars-d 
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 11 September 2014 at 20:45:09 UTC, Marc Schütz 
>> wrote:
>> I've addressed this in the Wiki now. There were only a few 
>> changes to be
>> made to move away from type modifiers. I had even suggested it 
>> as an
>> implementation detail, but didn't think of making it part of 
>> the
>> specification. Thank you for that insight, it makes the 
>> proposal more
>> consistent and avoids the troubles with the types.
>
>
> I'm not convinced this is a good change.
> It sounds like you're just trading one problem with another 
> more sinister
> problem...
>
> What happens when a scope() thing finds it's way into generic 
> code? If the
> type doesn't carry that information, then you end up in a 
> situation like
> ref. Have you ever had to wrestle with ref in generic code?
> ref is the biggest disaster zone in D, and I think all it's 
> problems will
> translate straight to scope if you do this.

Could you give an example?