We can delay the decision about "optional parentheses for normal functions". It can be separated from "strict prohibition of optional parentheses for property functions"
Kenji Hara 2013/1/25 Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> > 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. > >
