Feature complete?

[Vitaly Davidovich]

Mark,

I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to share your thoughts on what java
would look like if designed right now :), but I was strictly speaking about
the access modifier for modules.  The question is basically whether a
module-private access modifier was omitted due to legacy/migration concerns
or something more fundamental.  Apparently the Under the Hood talk mentions
the reason, so I'm hoping someone can just quickly mention the reason here.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:41 AM, <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:

> 2015/12/1 7:22 -0800, vitalyd at gmail.com:
> > ...
> >
> > Well, people can get used to just about anything, doesn't mean it's
> > necessarily the right way.  But fundamentally, I'd like to look at java
> > source/types and be able to infer as much semantics as possible, this
> > includes visibility.  With jigsaw, this is now blurred for public types.
> > If modules are truly a first class citizen, they ought to have their own
> > language-visible access modifier.  Let's put it this way -- green field
> > scenario, no legacy code to worry about, is this still the right choice?
>
> In a green-field scenario, with no legacy code to worry about, we
> probaby wouldn't have packages, protected members, or even non-private
> constructors -- and we definitely wouldn't have serialization.
>
> That is not, however, the world that we live in.
>
> - Mark
>