Collections set accessors

[Mikeyranks]

Using the .NET framework and some other third party API's I've
noticed
that objects with a collection property generally don't have a set
accessor? That is to say I have not yet managed to find one yet.

After searching around I've not managed to find a reason why other
than that it forces you to use the the provided .Add(), .Remove(),
RemoveAt() methods of the collection.
Why cant I do something like:
this.imageList1.Images = myImageCollection;
Any elements in myImageCollection would have had to have used these
methods anyway so I can't see why I have to enumerate and add
individually.
I cannot seem to find any information as to why this is? Is there an
unspoken rule or design pattern that discourages setting all the
collection elements in one go? Is this the same across other
languages/platforms?
Thanks

[Mr. Arnold]

"Mikeyranks" <mi*************@googlemail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@i38g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...

Using the .NET framework and some other third party API's I've
noticed
that objects with a collection property generally don't have a set
accessor? That is to say I have not yet managed to find one yet.

After searching around I've not managed to find a reason why other
than that it forces you to use the the provided .Add(), .Remove(),
RemoveAt() methods of the collection.
Why cant I do something like:
this.imageList1.Images = myImageCollection;

That imageList.Images is derived from System.Windows.Forms Namespace.

A collection is derrived form the System.Collection Namespace, and I am
pretthy sure you can't get away with that up above.
If Names1 and Names2 are derived from System.Collection you should be ables
to do Name1 = Name2

Or if a method was returning a System.Collection then you can do this.

Names1 = Names.GetNames() // with GetNames returning System.Collection.