Quote:Original post by Telastyn
because fields can't be used (and thus implemented as part of) interfaces. And because for a few select things, a property doesn't quite behave like a field
Such as? :(
Quote:so refactoring from a field to a property (once you need to) isn't ideal.
But if, indeed,
Quote:Their primary benefit is looking and behaving like a field when in fact they [could be anything]
, then what exactly is going on here? I thought the whole point was to be able to switch from using a field to a property upon determining that it's necessary, and not have to change any external code. If that doesn't work, it seems like it's only syntactic sugar (and a relatively ridiculous bit of it at that) which misses a golden opportunity. And if it does work, then the { get; set; } part seems useless as-is (wait until it's at least as complicated as { get; private set; } or whatever). :/