[records] updates for Preview 6. Default access modes

[Brian Goetz]

This is where we want to aim for.  It was not practical (for reasons of 
accidental-complexity management) in preview/1 but those issues have 
been addressed and it is now practical to get there.

On 1/10/2020 5:04 AM, Tagir Valeev wrote:
> Of these options, I like C the most, though I would modify it:
> D. The access modifier for explicit overloads to synthetic members
> (canonical constructor & accessors) must be the same or more
> permissive than an access modifier for the record itself. The absence
> of access modifier means 'package-private', as usual for classes. This
> would require 'public' for public records, and it's nice because you
> will see that it's really a part of the API. On the other hand, this
> would reduce noise for inner/local records where you can omit the
> access modifier. And still, you can specify public on local records,
> so you can easily reduce the record visibility without the need to
> modify all the members.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20200110/a2e6516e/attachment.htm>