Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • How could this be accomplished? I would like to override the gets themselves, if that is possible. Could you maybe show me an example? Commented Dec 1, 2009 at 23:49
  • Sure. I also clarified that the whole property needs to be virtual, not just the getter. Commented Dec 2, 2009 at 0:06
  • Inheritance seems like overkill for this. Commented Dec 2, 2009 at 0:13
  • With strict regard to the question "is it possible to get around defining get without defining set", I disagree. With broader regard to his overall scenario, this approach also gives him a rounded and un-rounded version of the class. The resulting class names can then have better semantics. However, I agree that unless he can reap these particular benefits, this might be overkill. Commented Dec 2, 2009 at 0:23