Please, can the langauge stop inferring scope and return for @trusted/@system?

[Dukc]

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 10:48:13 UTC, Dennis wrote:
> You're raising a valid concern, but this is a problem whether 
> `scope` inference is enabled in `@trusted` code or not. One 
> implementation could infer an unannotated function `@system` 
> because it thinks `scope` pointers might escape, and a smarter 
> implementation could find it's actually `@safe`

As I understand it, an unannotated function, when inference is 
on, is checked just like it had `@safe` except that it's made 
`@system` instead of compilation failure if the check fails. 
You're probably right that the DIP1000 checking rules aren't well 
defined in the spec. But DIP1000 had a draft of those rules, 
meaning that they are at least intended to be specified - in 
principle they are not implementation-defined.

Does the same apply to the more minimal escape checks in 
`@trusted`/`@system`? I have always understood that they are 
intentionally implementation-defined checks. I think they must 
either be specified, or the langauge semantics must stop relying 
on them. I'd prefer the latter, as it does not feel as special 
cased.