On 21.11.2013. 7:06, Walter Bright wrote: > On 11/20/2013 7:14 PM, Manu wrote: >> It would be nice to have a commitment on @property. >> Currently, () is optional on all functions, and @property means nothing. >> I personally think () should not be optional, and @property should >> require that >> () is not present (ie, @property has meaning). > > The next release is going to be about bug fixes, not introducing > regressions from new features(!). It's a short release cycle, anyway. >
How is this not a but? It sure does not behave the same as described in http://dlang.org/property.html#classproperties . And what everyone wants (and agrees on) is that it should behave like it is described in the documentation! How does that not qualify as a bug!?