Einar,

Well, ok, I'll agree with you in that situation ... but it seems wasteful to try and give every single private variable a property when most of the time you are not going to need this sort of checking in the set of a property.

Just my 2 cents, I may be wrong. <g>

~~Bonnie




>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