Mandy,
> On 9 Mar 2020, at 18:55, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Here is the spec clarification I am thinking of that may explain why the
> focus is not whether MODULE bit is set or not.
>
> @@ -1524,14 +1524,20 @@
> * Creates a lookup on the same lookup class which this lookup obje
On 3/9/20 10:45 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Sure, I guess it somewhat depends on how you see 8240242 [1] turning
out. 8240242 clearly describes a similar(ish) issue where dropping
PUBLIC, when it is not currently held, has no effect, i.e. it does not
result in “no access” - this is either a bug i
Mandy,
> On 9 Mar 2020, at 16:37, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
> I have bcc'ed jdk-dev and add core-libs-dev mailing list where this thread
> should be discussed.
>
> The spec says:
>
> "When dropping PACKAGE then the resulting lookup will not have PACKAGE or
> PRIVATE access. When dropping MODULE
I have bcc'ed jdk-dev and add core-libs-dev mailing list where this
thread should be discussed.
The spec says:
"When dropping|PACKAGE|then the resulting lookup will not
have|PACKAGE|or|PRIVATE|access.When dropping|MODULE|then the resulting
lookup will not have|MODULE|,|PACKAGE|, or|PRIVATE|ac
