@property (again)

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 03:14:30 UTC, Manu wrote:
> I personally think () should not be optional

No.

>   Then we have this confusing situation:
>     myProperty(); // am I calling the property, or am I calling 
> the function the property returns?

Yes, this case is the whole reason @property was added in the 
first place! How many years has it been now with the half-assed 
implementation?

We can and should fix this without any other arguments about 
optional parenthesis.