On Thursday, June 20, 2013 00:21:45 TommiT wrote: > Also, I'm just curious why do you keep saying "we don't want to > complicate the package access specifier any further"? Because > isn't the current specification of the package access specifier > the simplest possible that it could ever be? "Everything under > the same folder has access to symbols labeled package". It takes > just 11 words to define it. You're talking about it like it's > already somehow complicated.
No, it's not complicated, but the lanugage as a whole is complicated, and any new feature that's added to it increases its complexity. As such, it needs to pull its weight, and I really don't believe that that's the case here. I just don't think that complicating the package access modifier any further is worth the gain. There is some gain, but I think that it's ultimately quite small, and I'd much prefer that access modifiers stay simple. Obviously, you're entitled to think that the extra complexity is worth it, but I don't agree. - Jonathan M Davis
