Hello,
Tom Spink said:
Indeed I must agree. Unless you are talking about the Get and Set parts of
the property.
I use the terms "method", "property", "event", "attribute" more abstract,
language-, and implementation-independent.
Using a tool like ILDASM or .NET Reflector to disassembly or
decompile an Assembly clearly shows that there are two methods
created, a get_### and set_### (unless of course the property is read-
only or write-only).
ACK.
I'd class the property as an attribute, like you say Herfried, but the code
within the Get and Set blocks as the method part of a property.
ACK.
Totally Agree. Properties shouldn't be used to perform time-consuming
tasks, such as this:
Public ReadOnly Property AskUser() As DialogResult
Get
Return MsgBox("Foo", "Bar")
End Get
End Property
That is BAD.
The sample above is really good. AskUser is an _action_, it should not be
implemented as a property (attribute).
What *I* think is acceptable is something like checking for the
presence of your window handle:
Public Property SubTitle() As String
Get
Return m_Title
End Get
Set (Value As String)
m_Title = Value
If Me.IsHandleCreated Then RepaintMe()
End Set
End Property
ACK. I would accept this as a property too:
\\\
Public ReadOnly Property InstalledFonts() As FontFamily()
Get
' Enumerate fonts and return an array of FontFamily objects.
End Get
End Property
///
Sure, the code performs an action, but this action is transparent to the
user of the class. When implementing something like your 'AskUser' property
as a property, the action is not transparent to the user any more.
Regards,
Herfried K. Wagner
