That works for me. I wonder if we can show a different error if there's a non-public setter. I remember being confused for a bit the first time I saw that error about the property being read-only.
- Josh On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 11/22/16, 9:26 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >If they make the getter public and the setter private, it's probably on > >purpose. If the compiler then forces the setter to be public for > >[Bindable], it should at least tell them that something probably > >unexpected > >is happening. I think a warning makes sense. > > I don't think that [Bindable] has to force the setter to be public. > > IMO, the right answer is to leave the setter as private and you'll get the > same errors as if you didn't use [Bindable] which is an error about > read-only if you don't use the private:: prefix. That isn't completely > obvious, but at least is consistent. > > Thoughts? > -Alex > > >
