Daniel Keep wrote: >> You do understand that properties with automatic backing storage would >> probably also not be allowed in interfaces. They'd have the same memory >> layout problems as fields. > > *blink*
*blink* > You wouldn't declare a property with automatic backing in an interface; > that would be specifying implementation which you're not allowed to do. > > I was demonstrating why trivial properties exist in real code. It's the > *class* that would declare a property with automatic storage. Ah, you're talking about the interface to a property, not the property itself. I see what you mean now. My mistake. -- Michiel Helvensteijn