blocks|key|821136|text|它实际上是protected或internal，而不是和。它可以通过派生类和同一程序集中的类型访问，既可以访问，也可以访问。认为protected+internal意味着只有同一程序集中的派生类才能访问是一种常见的误解。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|BOLD|entityRanges|data|821137|entityMap^0|5|9|F|8|1S|I|R|1|1D|6|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|I|8|@$9|J|A|K|B|C]|$9|L|A|M|B|C]|$9|N|A|O|B|C]|$9|P|A|Q|B|D]|$9|R|A|S|B|D]]|E|@]|F|$]]|$1|G|3|-4|5|6|7|T|8|@]|E|@]|F|$]]]|H|$]]

It's effectively <code>protected</code> or <code>internal</code>, not and. It's accessible both by derived classes and types in the same assembly. It's a common misconception to think <code>protected internal</code> means accessible only to derived classes in the same assembly.

blocks|key|2347305|text|protected+internal比protected或internal的限制要小，因为它允许它的子类(protected)和同一程序集(internal)中的任何东西访问某些东西。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|2347306|entityMap^0|0|I|J|9|T|8|1H|9|1Y|8|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@$9|I|A|J|B|C]|$9|K|A|L|B|C]|$9|M|A|N|B|C]|$9|O|A|P|B|C]|$9|Q|A|R|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|G|$]]

<code>protected internal</code> is less restrictive than either <code>protected</code> or <code>internal</code> because it allows both its subclasses (<code>protected</code>) and anything in the same assembly (<code>internal</code>) to access something.

blocks|key|941680|text|受保护的内部意味着对同一程序集中的类是可见的，或者对从包含类派生的类可见-换句话说，它对于那些满足内部需求或受保护需求的人来说是可见的，而不是和。没有访问修饰符，意思是保护和内部以这种方式。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|941681|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

protected internal means visible to classes in the same assembly, or to classes deriving from the containing class - in other words it is visible to those meeting the internal requirements OR the protected requirements, not AND. There is no access modifier meaning protected AND internal in this way.

blocks|key|942282|text|保护内部指保护或内部保护，不受保护和内部保护。因此，作用域仅限于相同的程序集或派生类，而不一定两者兼有。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|942283|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

protected internal means protected OR internal, not protected and internal. So scope is limited to the same assembly OR derived classes, not necessarily both.

blocks|key|942300|text|在.NET级别，有两个相似但不同的访问级别：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|942301|FamilyAndAssembly:比受保护的或内部的限制更严格|unordered-list-item|942302|FamilyOrAssembly:比受保护的或内部的限制更少|942303|在C#中，“受保护的内部”的意思是FamilyOrAssembly；FamilyAndAssembly没有修饰符。|942304|因此，您的protected+internal设置器比internal整体属性的限制要小。你能做的就是：|offset|length|style|CODE|942305|protected+internal+bool+IP+{+internal+get;+set;+}|code-block|syntax|javascript|942306|但你的策划者比你的得奖者少得多，这很奇怪.|942307|另一种(有点类似的)替代办法是：|942308|internal+bool+IP+{+get;+set;+}

protected+void+SetIP(bool+ip)
{
++++this.IP+=+ip;
}|942309|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|5|I|R|8|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|11|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|12|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|E|3|F|5|D|7|13|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|14|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|J|5|6|7|15|8|@$K|16|L|17|M|N]|$K|18|L|19|M|N]]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|O|3|P|5|Q|7|1A|8|@]|9|@]|A|$R|S]]|$1|T|3|U|5|6|7|1B|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|V|3|W|5|6|7|1C|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|X|3|Y|5|Q|7|1D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$R|S]]|$1|Z|3|-4|5|6|7|1E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|10|$]]

At the .NET level, there are two similar but distinct access levels:

<ul>
<li>FamilyAndAssembly: more restrictive than either protected or internal</li>
<li>FamilyOrAssembly: less restrictive than either protected or internal</li>
</ul>

"protected internal" in C# means FamilyOrAssembly; there's no modifier for FamilyAndAssembly.

So, your <code>protected internal</code> setter is less restrictive than the <code>internal</code> overall property. What you could do is:

<pre><code>protected internal bool IP { internal get; set; }
</code></pre>

But then your setter is less restricted than your getter, which is odd...

Another (somewhat equivalent) alternative is:

<pre><code>internal bool IP { get; set; }

protected void SetIP(bool ip)
{
 this.IP = ip;
}
</code></pre>

blocks|key|941704|text|可访问性修饰符必须比属性具有更强的限制性。|type|blockquote|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|941705|内部是更严格的保护:因为受保护的东西可以(通过子类)在程序集之外看到。|unstyled|941706|编译器说，如果整个set属性是内部的(即程序集之外的不可见的)，那么说IP是受保护的(即对程序集之外的子类是可见的)是没有意义的。|offset|length|style|CODE|941707|entityMap^0|0|0|9|3|Z|2|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|E|3|F|5|D|7|O|8|@$G|P|H|Q|I|J]|$G|R|H|S|I|J]]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|K|3|-4|5|D|7|T|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|L|$]]

<blockquote>
 accessibility modifier must be more restrictive than the property
</blockquote>

Internal is more restrictive that protected: because protected things can be seen (by subclasses) outside the assembly.

The compiler is saying that there's no sense in saying that <code>set</code> is protected (i.e. visible to subclasses outside the assembly), when the whole <code>IP</code> property is internal (i.e. invisible outside the assembly).

blocks|key|821229|text|我会考虑这种欺骗，因为excellent自己也是如此，但是他写了一篇很棒的博客文章来考虑这个问题。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|821230|为什么我不能从派生类中访问受保护的成员，第三部分|offset|length|821231|最终，他的回答基本上和这里的海报一样，但他在语言的设计和这些特性的实现背后做了一些有趣的推理。|821232|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2008/04/24/why-can-t-i-access-a-protected-member-from-a-derived-class-part-three.aspx^0|0|0|O|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@$D|R|E|S|1|T]]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|U|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|V|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|I|$J|$5|K|L|M|A|$N|O]]]]

I would consider this cheating, since Eric Lippert is on SO himself, but he wrote an excellent blog post that considers this issue.

<a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2008/04/24/why-can-t-i-access-a-protected-member-from-a-derived-class-part-three.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Why Can't I Access A Protected Member From A Derived Class, Part Three</a> 

Ultimately, his answer is largely the same as those given by the posters here, but he ads some interesting reasoning behind the desgin of the language and the implementation of these features.

blocks|key|2347442|text|考虑到Jon提到的内容(以及user59808的评论)，这难道不能达到预期的结果吗？|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2347443|protected+internal+bool+IP+{+get;+protected+set;+}|offset|length|style|CODE|2347444|entityMap^0|0|0|1E|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|K|8|@$D|L|E|M|F|G]]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|I|$]]

Considering what Jon Skeet mentioned (and user59808's comment), wouldn't this achieve the desired result?

<code>protected internal bool IP { get; protected set; }</code>

I'd like to create an internal auto-property:

<pre><code>internal bool IP { get; protected internal set; }
</code></pre>

I thought it would be possible to make the setter <code>protected</code> or <code>protected internal</code> - but I always get the error accessibility modifier must be more restrictive than the property. Isn't that the case? <code>Private</code> does not help me, here.

EDIT: 
The question is: How do I implement an auto-property with a internal getter and a protected setter?

Why is internal protected not more restrictive than internal?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

我想创建一个内部自动属性：internal bool IP { get; protected internal set; }我认为可以使setter protected或protected internal -但我总是得到错误可访问性修饰符必须比属性更具限制性。不是吗？Private帮不了我。编辑：问题是:如何使用内部...

问为什么内部保护不比内部保护更严格？
EN

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问为什么内部保护不比内部保护更严格？EN