What about later extensibility? Do you want all the clients of your objects to HAVE to recompile?
Also, some ams have rules. Our rules say: NO PUBLIC VARIABLES. NEVER. :-) Leaves us with a lot of properties. That said - I don't think we need a keyboard,j ust some automatism to write this code for us. Thomas Tomiczek THONA Software & Consulting Ltd. (Microsoft MVP C#/.NET) > -----Original Message----- > From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics. > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Damien Guard > Sent: Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 12:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Do properties need a 'holder' keyword? > > >I find it is very common to have a private field that > properties use to > hold there value, like > >get{return holder;}set{holder=value;} > > If that's all you are doing in a property's methods then why > not remove the property and make the private field public? > > [)amien > > =================================== > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com > NEW! ASP.NET courses you may be interested in: > > 2 Days of ASP.NET, 29 Sept 2003, in Redmond > http://www.develop.com/courses/2daspdotnet > > Guerrilla ASP.NET, 13 Oct 2003, in Boston > http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnet > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at > http://discuss.develop.com > > =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentorŪ http://www.develop.com NEW! ASP.NET courses you may be interested in: 2 Days of ASP.NET, 29 Sept 2003, in Redmond http://www.develop.com/courses/2daspdotnet Guerrilla ASP.NET, 13 Oct 2003, in Boston http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnet View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
