>> I'd also like to discuss enhancement for the proposal which would remove the different between ref and pointer handling in lifetime analysis and would allow to merge `return ref` and `return scope` into one entity (at cost of loosing some features that I consider of no practical use). This is not necessary but would be nice to consider before design get set in stone.
> 
> Yes it also seems to me we only need "return scope", "return scope ref",
> and "scope ref". Because "return ref" seems useless if you can escape
> the reference inside of the function.
> Would like to have more than a gut feeling for that argument/decision.

I will look into it after updating existing DIP1000 document to match implementation.

>> Ongoing problem in new D features is that last 20% of any implementation gets forgotten in process of development and when it released, it heavily lacks polish required to make good impression.
> 
> You might want to try adding a scope card to the backlog that has a checklist for all the small stuff, though you'd need to have the examples as an attachment, gist, or so.

Sure: https://trello.com/c/JOxCazeF/263-dip1000-scope-implementation

I don't think such approach (packing everything into one board) scales well but it is not important now so let's use whatever you are comfortable with.