+1 for leaving the setter private. -Mark
-----Original Message----- From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:01 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [Bindable] and private setters (was Re: [Falcon]) On 11/22/16, 9:26 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: >If they make the getter public and the setter private, it's probably on >purpose. If the compiler then forces the setter to be public for >[Bindable], it should at least tell them that something probably >unexpected >is happening. I think a warning makes sense. I don't think that [Bindable] has to force the setter to be public. IMO, the right answer is to leave the setter as private and you'll get the same errors as if you didn't use [Bindable] which is an error about read-only if you don't use the private:: prefix. That isn't completely obvious, but at least is consistent. Thoughts? -Alex
