On Monday, November 19, 2012 09:16:29 Rob T wrote: > My guess is that if @property gets enforced, we'll see a lot of > functions with empty parameter lists being defined as @property > for the sole reason to get rid of having to type in the ().
Which completely violates the concept of a property in the first place. It's intended to be an abstraction for a variable. Using @property just to get rid of parens would be like naming types with verbs instead of nouns. It's completely backwards. - Jonathan M Davis
