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". However, it drives me to another topic that is related and that we talked about a few years back: having the ability to use annotations without the `@`. So you would say `compilestatic class Foo`, or `packagescope Foo foo`.
2017-12-29 12:35 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>: > 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 constants in annotation attributes we'd have >> to check didn't get in the way). >> > > It doesn´t make sense on local variables, the package, parameters or > parameter types... Maybe I misunderstood what you mean with "ALL" > > > bye Jochen >
