Am 24.01.2013 20:14, schrieb Jonathan M Davis: > On Thursday, January 24, 2013 14:43:33 Adam D. Ruppe wrote: >> No, god no. This would break code AGAIN and still not fix the >> problems, instead introducing new ones! >> >> (...) > > Yes. I think that it's fairly clear that we need to do something like this. > Getting rid of @property is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not > having it is a complete mess. And plenty of corner cases have been shown just > in this thread which show how not having @property causes problems, > completely > aside from the issue of whether you should be allowed to call functions > without parens. > > Personally, I'd love strict property enforcement, but I think that it's clear > at this point that that's not going to fly. However, a solution like this > which > is effectively weak property enforcement (parens illegal on @property > functions > but optional for normal functions) fixes the worst technical problems caused > by > the lack of @property, and this particular proposal seems like a solid way to > go about it. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
I see it exactly the same way.
