@property (again)

[Manu]

I wouldn't call @property a 'new' feature... it's been in there for years!
;)


On 21 November 2013 16:06, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20131121/ec9fee5b/attachment.html>