What is a language construct? (was Re: Comment on state of Project Jigsaw)

[Eric Johnson]

Is this really just a comparison with a language like Ruby, wherein a 
"module" could be done without adding any additional syntax to the language?

That is, I take the original point to be that "module" definitions 
effectively look like a new DSL, and one that requires changes to the 
Java compiler to accommodate, rather than one that can be accommodated 
as-is.

Keeping true to this principle of using what is already defined for the 
language might lead one, for example, to leveraging the MANIFEST.MF file 
already defined for Java, but adding new fields to that file.

Alternately, following the principle in question, it could be done as a 
standard Java class file leveraging static initialization and/or 
annotations.

-Eric.

On 12/21/11 10:48 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2011/12/21 10:33 -0800, neal at gafter.com:
>> My main high-level comment on project Jigsaw is that is fails its first
>> principle: modularity appears in the draft not to be a language construct,
>> but at best a completely separate language from the Java programming
>> language.
> Module declarations control the visibility and accessibility of types in
> all phases of development.
>
> If that's not sufficient to make them a language construct, then what is
> your criterion?
>
> - Mark