Re: [VOTE]Support package scope via `package` keyword

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > On 29.12.2017 11:58, Paul King wrote: > [...] > >> 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

Re: [VOTE]Support package scope via `package` keyword

I'd tend to be -1 on the name "package" and 0 on the feature. The -1 is because "package" is not a modifier by itself. I'd prefer "package private" (the official Java name for this). So it leads to the 0, because "package private" is kind of verbose, and doesn't save much from "PackageScope".

Re: [VOTE]Support package scope via `package` keyword

Hi Jochen, Thanks for your voting :-) > but under the condition to deprecate @PackageScope in 2.6.0 and then I > would like to have it removed in 3.0.0 (if we want to be serious about > cleanups, that is) Yeah, we can do better step by step. Cheers, Daniel.Sun -- Sent from:

Re: [VOTE]Support package scope via `package` keyword

On 29.12.2017 11:58, Paul King wrote: [...] 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

Re: [VOTE]Support package scope via `package` keyword

On 29.12.2017 03:40, Daniel Sun wrote: Hi all, In order to support package scope, we have to add annotation `@PackageScope` to the target(e.g. class, field, method), which is verbose. Nathan Harvey has started a thread to discuss specifying the package scope via `package` keyword[1]. The

Re: [VOTE]Support package scope via `package` keyword

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Daniel.Sun 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

Re: [VOTE]Support package scope via `package` keyword

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

Re: [VOTE]Support package scope via `package` keyword

Just so I understand, the intention is to keep @PackageScope with `package` being an alias for when no target is required. Correct? If that's correct, it won't eliminate the need for IDEs to scan for @PackageScope in general but in some common cases, some preliminary assumptions could be made.