[langtools] RFR (L): 8010319: Implementation of JEP 181: Nest-Based Access Control

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

On 15/05/18 09:13, Remi Forax wrote:
> I agree with this strategy. Given that we are aligning the VM class semantics to the Java the language semantics, i do not think people will still want accessors, perhaps in a nightmare, 'i still want accessors otherwise the stacktraces are too easy to read', in 5 when ldc class was intoduced, nobody ask to keep the class accessor code.
To be clear, I wasn't thinking of a flag to be used by the general 
public, but one used by the build system - in the past we had issues 
e.g. with indified string concat causing bootstrap issues in the JDK 
build, so we had to resort to such 'escape hatches' to disable 
generation of certain code shape (esp. while compiling java.base). But I 
doubt we will find such surprises at this late stage, given the amount 
of effort David put into testing all this.

Maurizio