RFC: scope and borrowing

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 10:29:25 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 9/23/14 6:26 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= 
> <schuetzm at gmx.net>" wrote:
>> Ok, I take it back ;-) Steven is right. It is however the case 
>> that this
>> function's return value would still be unique.
>
> Yes, it could be unique. I haven't read this thread really, so 
> I don't know what has been proposed, but looking at the 
> snippet, wouldn't you have to tag the return value? You tagged 
> the parameter with unique.

Bearophile did, not me. But yes, you would have to, absent an 
extension to return type inference. As I already replied to him, 
uniqueness was really just used in an example because it made it 
cleaner; it's mostly unrelated to my proposal.