On 28 July 2016 at 04:15, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: > I think you meant David Lloyd. Yeah, sorry!
> I have no issue with modules defining a new accessibility boundary. Seems > perfectly natural to me, and something that has been postulated since the > original superpackages proposal - JSR-294. Adding a new accessibility boundary seems reasonable. How that is done is open to question - in this thread I am primarily focussed on the syntax used to express the rules (exports) not the premise of them. By changing the default, it means that for most users their access control and reflection will not change and thus module-info can be added with little impact. > I find it incomprehensible to be > "this close" to the end and find people arguing for a reversal of the basic > premises. In my view, only recently has there been any kind of meaningful discussion on the issues, and that has been at a point where it is allegedly too late to change them. To me, it feels like there is a long way to go before this should be released. Stephen
