[jsr294-modularity-eg] Pain

[Alex Buckley]

Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 7/24/09 7:40 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>> It seems somewhat defeatist to just resign ourselves to the fact that
>>> we need a design-by-committee, meta-ish approach. I agree with
>>> Peter's overall goal of trying to be more concrete. The trick is
>>> keeping it small, while leaving room for module systems to do their
>>> own thing.
>>
>> I agree they should do their own thing w.r.t. visibility; for
>> accessibility, the language's model must be kept as simple as possible.
> 
> It seems if we were keeping it "as simple as possible", we would just 
> define module accessibility and that's it.

294 relaunched this year to cover both accessibility and visibility. We 
have a simple accessibility model based on module membership, that 
compile-time and runtime tools can build on to simulate features like 
nesting and 'implementation modules'. Proposals that further enrich 
accessibility in the hope we'll give up or time out on visibility are 
misplaced.

Anyone who actively argues against addressing both accessibility and 
visibility should leave the EG.

Alex