Hi, On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 13:05 -0400, Stuart Ballard wrote: > I'm wondering if it > would be better for Japitools to catch this kind of situation and > treat the "impl" field as if it's package-private itself - that is, > ignore it entirely since japi only deals with public and protected > members. > > I can't think of any reasons why any such field (or a method taking a > non-public type as a parameter or returning one) should ever matter in > practice for compatibility, but I'd like to see if other people feel > the same way before trying to implement skipping them.
This looks like something the compiler should warn against "public/protected field/return with package/private type" (inner classes could be private). Tom are you taking notes for gcjx? I think japi should also warn against it not hide it, except when explicitly told to. Cheers, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
