Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Not quite an Attribute, not quite a Method. Stereotypes? <<get>> <<set>>?
I’m retro-modelling an existing system, so I need to clearly reflect that this is not the same as a readonly field or a methods pair (regardless of what the IL says), so I think I’ll go with the stereotype, but I’ll accept the language independant get_ set_ as a general solution. Thanks all for the sanity test.
Properties are just a convenient way of writing
get_MyValue()andset_MyValue(value)allowing assignment rather than the normal method calling (using parenthesis).What you are accessing is actually a .NET property, C# has its own syntax for accessing these. Since under the skin the real
get_andset_methods are created, so you could simply show those methods (to make your UML language independent – e.g. make your UML equally applicable to a VB.NET developer)… or as you have suggested, introduce your own stereotype!