Some pullbacks

[Kevin Bourrillion]

Agreed.


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> We would like to pull back two small features from the JSR-335 feature
> plan:
>
>  - private methods in interfaces
>  - "package modifier" for package-private visibility
>
> The primary reason is resourcing; cutting some small and inessential
> features made room for deeper work on more important things like type
> inference (on which we've made some big improvements lately!)  Private
> methods are also an incomplete feature; we'd like the full set of
> visibilities, and limiting to public/private was already a compromise based
> on what we thought we could get done in the timeframe we had.  But it would
> still be a rough edge that protected/package were missing.
>
> The second feature, while trivial (though nothing is really trivial),
> loses a lot of justification without at least a move towards the full set
> of accessibilities.  As it stands, it is pretty far afield of lambda,
> nothing else depends on it, and not doing it now does not preclude doing it
> later.  (The only remaining connection to lambda is accelerating the death
> of the phrase "default visibility" to avoid confusion with default methods.)
>
>


-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-spec-experts/attachments/20130130/3a6a1695/attachment.html