@property (again)

[luka8088]

On 21.11.2013. 7:06, Walter Bright 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.
> 

How is this not a but?

It sure does not behave the same as described in
http://dlang.org/property.html#classproperties .

And what everyone wants (and agrees on) is that it should behave like it
is described in the documentation!

How does that not qualify as a bug!?