Why use a DFA instead of DIP1000?

[Dennis]

On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 at 14:21:07 UTC, Richard (Rikki) 
Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> Here are some code similar to what I've sent Walter over the 
> past year for what I want to work by default for escape 
> analysis in D.

You gave 4 code snippets. 1 and 2 already compile as expected, 3 
already errors as expected if you add `@safe`, and 4 has no 
defined expected behavior. None of these have a source linking 
them to an existing D user / code base.

To reiterate, the question is:

> Can you think of any more realistic examples where DFA allows 
> you to infer safety where DIP1000 is currently limited?

As long as you keep dancing around it, I'm going to assume the 
answer is 'no'.