On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:52:05 +0100 "Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote: > > And we can (and should) implement @property in a way that deals with > properties properly regardless of what we do with parenless function > calls. >
I should clarify that this is my view as well. I may be vocally opposed to optional-parens for function calls, but even I'll admit that *is* a much lesser issue than making sure @property stays and is implemented properly.
