I agree, but do you honestly think that (killing backwards compatibility) would go over well here? I'm arguing the only backwards compatible method to resolve these inconsistencies.
The fundamental flaw in your logic here is that most people would rather see less scope for poor code at the cost of letting the inconsistency remain. Personally I'd be quite happy to see backwards compatability broken in this case to enforce the use of () or {}.
But that's probably just my lack of skill and experience talking.
