Compiler bug? regression for the template function call syntax

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, May 31, 2013 08:27:19 Ali Çehreli wrote:
> I think it is the same issue with non-templated functions. The best
> thing to do is to forget about the -property switch. I did about a year
> ago and never looked back. :)

Given the most recent discussions on @property, I think that it's a foregone 
conclusion that we will never have strict property enforcement (which is what 
-property is trying to do), and -property will be going away at some point in 
the future. The general consensus is that folks want optional parens and not 
have that have anything to do with @property. I think that the only real 
question at this point is what happens with setters, as some folks want 
setters to be restricted to @property, and others just want to go to the 
behavior we had before @property and not need @property at all. For the most 
part, at this point, @property is looking like a failure.

- Jonathan M Davis