c_sharp_exports.rst: fix private naming style; minor grammar

[31]

I took a peek at this doc for reference for #8815 (comment) and saw that private Foo _foo style wasn't being used consistently here. Also a couple minor grammar changes.

[AThousandShips]

I think these should be public instead as they're exported

CC @raulsntos

[paulloz]

We use private exported fields in a lot of places, and we explicitly discourage using public fields in the style guide.

[AThousandShips]

Where? The styleguide makes no mention of exports, and the exports page uses public almost all the time

The official demo projects also do not use private fields exclusively

A search of the documentation itself shows:

• 13 cases of private
• 92 cases of public

A search of the demo projects shows:

• 2 cases of private
• 6 cases of public

[paulloz]

The styleguide makes no mention of exports

Didn’t say the styleguide mentioned exports, it mentions preferring properties to non public fields. And yes, the docs also show a lot of exported public properties. Which is why I’m saying if this is intended to be shown as public, it should be a property, else it should stay private. And if it is shown as a property, we essentially have a page about exports that lacks any example using fields which is… misleading IMHO.

Then again, only trying to help.

[AThousandShips]

Gotcha, did mean public and fields, not necessarily public plain variables 🙂 sorry for being unclear

[31]

I think these should be public instead as they're exported

Personally, I agree. [Export] to me is simply annotating a piece of my public API saying that Godot should show it in the inspector.

However, many people I've talked with (e.g. on the C# help discord channel) are accustomed to C# serialization libraries that readily get and set private state. From this perspective, [Export] private int _x; is a form of encapsulation: it allows Godot to change these members while protecting them from inadvertent changes by other C# scripts that interact with them.

I think it's important for this doc to point out that fields and properties, public and private, all work, so nobody thinks Godot is "forcing" them to do something they feel is unnatural--regardless of Godot or broader industry style.

That said, making all but the first few examples default to public Foo Foo { get; set; } doesn't seem bad to me as long as it's still obvious that private fields/properties work.

[raulsntos]

Making them public makes sense to me. As long as, like you said, it's clear that it's also possible to export fields, and that the access modifier doesn't matter.

I think, with the current changes, it's clear enough.

[mhilbrunner]

Thank you! Merged. 🎉