@property needed or not needed?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, November 19, 2012 09:16:29 Rob T wrote:
> My guess is that if @property gets enforced, we'll see a lot of
> functions with empty parameter lists being defined as @property
> for the sole reason to get rid of having to type in the ().

Which completely violates the concept of a property in the first place. It's 
intended to be an abstraction for a variable. Using @property just to get rid 
of parens would be like naming types with verbs instead of nouns. It's 
completely backwards.

- Jonathan M Davis