On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:52:05 +0100

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
>

> And we can (and should) implement @property in a way that deals with
> properties properly regardless of what we do with parenless function
> calls.
>

I should clarify that this is my view as well. I may be vocally opposed
to optional-parens for function calls, but even I'll admit that *is* a
much lesser issue than making sure @property stays and is implemented
properly.