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

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 18:31:40 UTC, Dennis wrote:
> Learning a complex system could be rewarding if afterwards you 
> can write expressive code with lifetime tracking, but in the 
> case of dip1000, after all your learning efforts you still 
> can't write a routine that splits a `scope string` into a 
> `scope(string)[]` because dip1000 simply can't express that.

I think this is the most significant issue. There is now way to 
extend it later without making signatures even more complicated.