Why can't I give a function's return type the scope storage class?

[Olivier FAURE]

On Tuesday, 19 March 2019 at 10:19:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> The fact is that DIP1000 didn't prevent me from writing @safe 
> code where a pointer dangled. The point of my blog was "how can 
> we improve D to disallow anyone else from writing code like 
> this by making it fail to compile with -dip1000?". It's got 
> nothing to do with C++, the comparison was with Rust, where one 
> can't write the faulty code.

Hum, that's a little inaccurate. The part of your code that 
creates the dangling is marked as @trusted, which makes... 
aaaaand I've been ninja'ed.

But yeah, the problem isn't that -dip1000 allows unsafe code, 
it's that there is no way to do what automem does with -dip1000 
without using @trusted at some point. Language-level reference 
counting could fix that and is on W&A's roadmap, but that's 
another can of worms.