@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Sönke Ludwig]

Am 24.01.2013 20:14, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> On Thursday, January 24, 2013 14:43:33 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> No, god no. This would break code AGAIN and still not fix the
>> problems, instead introducing new ones!
>>
>> (...)
> 
> Yes. I think that it's fairly clear that we need to do something like this. 
> Getting rid of @property is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not 
> having it is a complete mess. And plenty of corner cases have been shown just 
> in this thread which show how not having @property causes problems, completely 
> aside from the issue of whether you should be allowed to call functions 
> without parens.
> 
> Personally, I'd love strict property enforcement, but I think that it's clear 
> at this point that that's not going to fly. However, a solution like this which 
> is effectively weak property enforcement (parens illegal on @property functions 
> but optional for normal functions) fixes the worst technical problems caused by 
> the lack of @property, and this particular proposal seems like a solid way to 
> go about it.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis
> 

I see it exactly the same way.