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

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, January 25, 2013 10:15:09 kenji hara wrote:
> 1. Optional parentheses for normal functions should work shallowly IMO.
> 2. Optional parentheses for property functions should not work. Applying ()
> for property function name always applied to its returned value.
> 
> #1 is a ratification of current behavior. It allows the combination of UFCS
> and removing redundant ()s.
> #2 is a breaking change. If we need it, community consent is required.

I'd say that we should do both. It's ridiculous to accept parens on property 
functions, since the whole point is that they be used as if they were 
variables. They're _supposed_ to be illegal (though -property doesn't check 
for it right now like it's supposed to - it only checks whether parens are 
used on non-property functions). So, I don't think that there's any question 
that #2 needs to happen with @property (unless Walter's horrid plan gets put 
into effect and we lose @property entirely). And #1 seems reasonable enough.

- Jonathan M Davis