On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Daniel.Sun <sun...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Paul, > > > Just so I understand, the intention is to keep @PackageScope with > > `package` being an alias for when no target is required. Correct? > > Yeah, correct :-) > > > Come to think of it, I wonder if there should be an `ALL` target? > I agree with you that the target of @PackageScope should be `ALL` > I am unsure if I made myself clear. I think the default should remain as CLASS but there could be an additional ALL enum value. Then again we could just have a PackageScopeTarget[] ALL constant (though we have an outstanding issue around using constants in annotation attributes we'd have to check didn't get in the way). > your vote is ? > I am at least a +0, just pondering the real merit given that it doesn't really save much work for IDE writers and it won't be more concise for a range of typical use cases. It doesn't scream a +1 for me but I'll ponder for a few more days. I'm keen to hear more thoughts. Cheers, Paul. > > Cheers, > Daniel.Sun > > > > -- > Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html >
