RFC: scope and borrowing

[deadalnix 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.
>
> -Steve

Unique is a bad name. You want to have various reference locally,
and the whole discussion is about scope.

Which bring us to the main point here, before discussing
borrowing, we'd better define ownership.