29 ms·
Are you saying that it's going to be equivalent to a non-private getter, private setter automatic property as it is now?
by andrea_s 12y ago
Are you saying that it's going to be equivalent to a non-private getter, private setter automatic property as it is now?
- jdmichal 12y agoIt's not equivalent. The getter-only auto-property will not have any setter at all. Previously, it had to have at least a private setter, which means that you couldn't strictly guarantee that it wasn't being updated. I used to write read-only properties the long way just to guarantee that they were actually read-only.