2
Vote

List property doesn't need setter

description

A List property id generated with both a getter and a setter. Code Analysis complains about the setter with a CA2227.
 
You don't need a setter as you initialize that list (correctly!) in the constructor.

comments

bugmenot2 wrote Jun 28, 2012 at 12:26 AM

This should not be considered a bug. In the case where one wishes to replace the entire List with another, a mutator ("setter") is essential. The v3.5 beta seems to not add mutators to Lists. Please reintroduce this feature, and perhaps an option to let the user decide if they want mutators on their Lists.