== Why is this an issue?

The difference between ``++private++`` and ``++protected++`` visibility is that child classes can see and use ``++protected++`` members, but they cannot see ``++private++`` ones. Since a ``++sealed++`` class cannot have children, marking its members ``++protected++`` is confusingly pointless.

=== Noncompliant code example

[source,csharp]
----
public sealed class MySealedClass 
{
    protected string name = "Fred";  // Noncompliant
    protected void SetName(string name) // Noncompliant
    {
        // ...
    }
}
----

=== Compliant solution

[source,csharp]
----
public sealed class MySealedClass 
{
    private string name = "Fred";
    public void SetName(string name)
    {
        // ...
    }
}
----

ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

include::../message.adoc[]

include::../highlighting.adoc[]

'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

=== on 21 Feb 2017, 16:32:27 Valeri Hristov wrote:
Removing the "static" part because the C# compiler generates an error if you try to add protected member in a static class. It does not generate error for sealed classes, so the rule still has value.

include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]

endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]