[AccessD] First real stumble with using VB.Net over VB

The problem as I see it is that "Public fields" are an abomination.  

Because Java has then, .Net has to as well :-(

You should not be able to accept any "properties" of an object other than through GET/SET 
processes.


-- 
Stuart

On 15 Apr 2011 at 16:18, jwcolby wrote:

> Drew,
> 
> What is clear is that you are using the definition of a property as "a
> unit of information about" which absolutely one of many English
> language (and programming) definitions of property.
> 
> You have already told us (as have I) that a public field and a
> property (keyword / function) behave differently.
> 
> The problem is yours not mine.  I understand and use your definition
> in the same way you do.  I do not expect a public field to behave in
> the same way that a property (keyword / function) does because they
> are fundamentally different things.  Personally I do not call a public
> field a property, I call it a public field (in programmer speak),
> though of course it is a property in English language speak.
> 
> You no longer expect them to behave the same because you have
> discovered that they are fundamentally different things.
> 
> Where is the argument?
> 
> Everyone now understands that you want to (and will probably) call
> public fields properties and moan that they behave differently.  To
> which I respond - NSS.
> 
> John W. Colby
> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>