I wouldn't call @property a 'new' feature... it's been in there for years! ;)
On 21 November 2013 16:06, Walter Bright <[email protected]> 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. > >
