Bonnie,
I am not sure I really have a good answer for this, but here we go. Using a property to update all private members just seems more "secure" to me. Let's say I have a private byte myByte member, but the value can only range from 0x32 to 0xCD, I would put the code to check the value in the set method.

Einar

>Einar,
>
>I'm curious as to why you don't want to access private members directly?
>
>~~Bonnie
>
>
>>Bonnie,
>>Thanks for your reply. That is what I ended up doing, but I would have prefered to only have one property name where I could only set it privately and get it publicly.
>>The more I thought about this I figured it would be a nightmare for the compiler. I am trying to never access the private members directly but always use a property, but sometimes I don't want to expose the set publicly (wow never and always in the same sentence lol <s>).
>>
>>Ohh well better to ask than to wonder.
>>
>>Again thanks.
>>
>>Einar
>>
>>>Nope. Victor's correct. But, keep in mind that you don't *have* to have a set, so you could leave it out of the public property, which would essentially make that property read-only.
>>>
>>>~~Bonnie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am pretty sure I know the answer to this one myself already, but I would still like to pose the question.
>>>>
>>>>Can I make the Get method of a property public and the Set method of the same property private?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Einar