This project is read-only.

List property doesn't need setter


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.


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.

wrote Feb 22, 2013 at 2:19 AM