@property (again)

[Walter Bright]

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.