DIP1000: 'return scope' ambiguity and why you can't make opIndex work

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 6/18/21 11:44 AM, Dennis wrote:
> If you're still confused, I don't blame you: I'm still confusing myself 
> regularly when reading signatures with `return` and `ref`.

I have a headache reading this post, and it makes me want to never use 
DIP1000.

We are creeping towards having as much confusion and pain as Rust, 
without the benefit.

I strongly believe we should implement DIP1000 in an expressive manner, 
instead of relying on confusing conventions -- just make a type 
constructor to signify lifetime management and be done.

-Steve