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

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Saturday, 19 June 2021 at 10:40:45 UTC, Bradley Chatha wrote:
> What are the chances though that the path/syntax can be changed 
> at this point though, mostly in regards to convincing people? 
> Not just for this suggestion, but any suggestion/criticism 
> towards DIP 1000 in general?

I think it is mostly up to the other compiler devs to convince 
Walter? I don't think there is anything I can do anyway.

> My main worry is that we'll end up with an inflexible, hard to 
> understand system that doesn't even do the job right. Yet 
> another tacked on feature for the language, etc.

This is a good reason to have an experimental branch and let new 
features sit there until people get enough experience with them.