I'm feeling like being in between -1 and 0. For the very rare cases where it's used, I (personally) don't care to have to use an annotation, even if that might seem a bit awkward or cumbersome (but we use annotations in plenty other contexts anyway because of AST transformations). I don't see much value adding this 'package' notation, apart from adding a bit more confusion for Java developers coming to Groovy and wondering what the package keyword does in that place.
Guillaume On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Nathan Harvey <nathanwhar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> [...] My original point remains that using an >> annotation to declare scope is awkward and cumbersome. > > > The thinking behind that at the time was that it is comparatively rare to > use package private > scope so let's not care if it's a little bit awkward and cumbersome if it > makes the much more > common case (public) much more concise. If we think the assumptions have > changed around > package private usage since then, it is possibly worth looking at again > but it isn't something > that I've noticed. The trend I was noticing some time back was that > inheritance (protected) > and package private (predominantly for ease of testing) were becoming less > common with > dependency injection and various agile practices reducing usage but > perhaps things have > swung the other away recently and I haven't noticed. > > Anyway, I'm happy to vote +1 on something that I see as not having a > downside but for > something that seems just like a sideways move with different but it's own > pros/cons then > I am less enthusiastic. > > Cheers, Paul. > > -- Guillaume Laforge Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
