Document FieldInfo.SetValue breaking change #3869
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left a couple suggestions. @BillWagner Do you think "init-only" is acceptable terminology?
Co-Authored-By: Genevieve Warren <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved with two more suggestions, incorporating feedback from @BillWagner .
xml/System.Reflection/FieldInfo.xml
Outdated
| ## Remarks | ||
| This method will assign `value` to the field reflected by this instance on object `obj`. If the field is static, `obj` will be ignored. For non-static fields, `obj` should be an instance of a class that inherits or declares the field. The new value is passed as an `Object`. For example, if the field's type is Boolean, an instance of `Object` with the appropriate Boolean value is passed. Before setting the value, `SetValue` checks to see if the user has access permission. This final method is a convenience method for calling the following `SetValue` method. | ||
| This method cannot be used to set values of static init-only (`readonly` in C#) fields reliably. In .NET Core 3.0 and later versions, an exception is thrown if you attempt to set a value on a static init-only field. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| This method cannot be used to set values of static init-only (`readonly` in C#) fields reliably. In .NET Core 3.0 and later versions, an exception is thrown if you attempt to set a value on a static init-only field. | |
| This method cannot be used to set values of static, `init-only` (`readonly` in C#) fields reliably. In .NET Core 3.0 and later versions, an exception is thrown if you attempt to set a value on a static, `init-only` field. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
static and init-only are similar kind of qualifiers. I would either put back-ticks around both or neither.
I do not have a strong opinion about it. I would be happy to apply the suggestion if you prefer to have only init-only in back-ticks. Let me know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the ECMA spec, they refer to the initonly attribute, but when not referring to a keyword, they use init-only as the general term. So I agree, I don't think we need the backticks here. @BillWagner?
https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-335.pdf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But we do need a comma between static and init-only.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But we do need a comma between static and init-only.
Fixed
xml/System.Reflection/FieldInfo.xml
Outdated
| ## Remarks | ||
| This method will assign `value` to the field reflected by this instance on `obj`. If the field is static, `obj` will be ignored. For non-static fields, `obj` should be an instance of a class that inherits or declares the field. The new value is passed as an `Object`. For example, if the field's type is `Boolean`, an instance of `Object` with the appropriate Boolean value is passed. Before setting the value, `SetValue` checks to see if the user has access permission. | ||
| This method cannot be used to set values of static init-only (`readonly` in C#) fields reliably. In .NET Core 3.0 and later versions, an exception is thrown if you attempt to set a value on a static init-only field. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| This method cannot be used to set values of static init-only (`readonly` in C#) fields reliably. In .NET Core 3.0 and later versions, an exception is thrown if you attempt to set a value on a static init-only field. | |
| This method cannot be used to set values of static, `init-only` (`readonly` in C#) fields reliably. In .NET Core 3.0 and later versions, an exception is thrown if you attempt to set a value on a static, `init-only` field. |
Add comma
Summary
Document breaking change dotnet/runtime#11571
Fixes #3851