On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Nathan Harvey <nathanwhar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] My original point remains that using an > annotation to declare scope is awkward and cumbersome. The thinking behind that at the time was that it is comparatively rare to use package private scope so let's not care if it's a little bit awkward and cumbersome if it makes the much more common case (public) much more concise. If we think the assumptions have changed around package private usage since then, it is possibly worth looking at again but it isn't something that I've noticed. The trend I was noticing some time back was that inheritance (protected) and package private (predominantly for ease of testing) were becoming less common with dependency injection and various agile practices reducing usage but perhaps things have swung the other away recently and I haven't noticed. Anyway, I'm happy to vote +1 on something that I see as not having a downside but for something that seems just like a sideways move with different but it's own pros/cons then I am less enthusiastic. Cheers, Paul.
