Is there a reason for most properties not having setters?

[Jan0660]

In my project that uses PrettyPrompt, which is a shell, I would like the user to be able to customize most thing from their profile file, which is code. My problem is that this would be already after I initialized my Prompt and PromptConfiguration instance and solving this would mean extra code on my side that could instead be replaced by an added set; on the properties in PrettyPrompt.

Having a setter on the properties would also allow using a C# object initializer, which at least in my opinion looks nicer.

I have hacked around this using reflection and can confirm that changing ProportionOfWindowHeightForCompletionPane or MaxCompletionItemsCount and probably others work like I would expect.

If you are open to adding setters on some properties I would be glad to make a PR, but I am afraid I would mess up with adding a setter to at least one property that wouldn't work when set after initialized or something.

[waf]

Hi @Jan0660, there's no specific reason for not having setters. The main reason, as you mentioned, is that we can't guarantee that the prompt will behave correctly if properties are being mutated as the prompt is running.

That being said, if you'd like to open a PR for the properties that you need to be settable, I'd be happy to do some testing and merge it. I'd rather expose setters on just the subset of properties that you need, rather than all of them.

[Jan0660]

Thanks for the reply. When I get back to this I'll make sure to open a PR.