Tell us your DIP1000 woes

[jmh530]

On Sunday, 25 August 2024 at 16:23:40 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew 
Cattermole wrote:
> [snip]
> - The abomination that is scope return + return scope (this is 
> easier to resolve in terms of new UDA's, but does not solve 
> communicability of behavior).
>

I think it would probably be useful to separate woes with DIP 
1000 into woes with `scope` parameters and woes with `return 
scope`/`ref return scope` parameters.

When it comes to mental complexity, I see that as less of an 
issue for `scope` parameters than for `return scope` or `ref 
return scope` parameters

There might be some outstanding issues with `scope`, like what 
you and Dennis bring up, but ultimately I think what `return 
scope` is doing is kind of like Rust lifetimes-lite. It solves a 
particular use case, but isn't sophisticated enough for more 
complicated ones.