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. Also, when documenting, we should note that `package` will be more concise when used in one or two places within a class but @PackageScope will be more concise if used with a PackageScopeTarget when a few (or more) members should be made package private. Come to think of it, I wonder if there should be an `ALL` target? Paul. On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Daniel Sun <realblue...@hotmail.com> 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 feature is feasible and has been implemented > in my labs project[2]. > > Please vote on add the new feature to Apache Groovy 3.0.0 and 2.6.0 > releases. > > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at > least three +1 PMC votes are cast. > > [ ] +1 The feature sounds good > [ ] 0 I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I assume it's ok > [ ] -1 Because... > > Cheers, > Daniel.Sun > > [1] > http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Package-specific-syntax-tp5745613.html > [2] https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/tree/package-scope > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html >
