RFR: 8001647: In-place methods on Collection/List
Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Tue Dec 11 12:28:38 UTC 2012
On 10/12/2012 21:59, Mike Duigou wrote:
> Adding "public" was at my suggestion.
>> It seems inconsistent to me to have it on the default methods. Perhaps this has been discussed before, in which case ignore this. BTW: The only reason I'm bringing this up is because there are lots of default methods to come and it would be nice to establish a convention and consistency from the start.
> Agreed that we should be consistent. The suggestion to add "public" isn't related specifically to the default but anticipates, perhaps prematurely, future addition of "package" "module" and "protected" modifiers. When those modifiers are added it will make sense to be explicit about the access of a method. Additionally, some have complained about the difference in default access between interfaces and classes (public vs package) and prefer to explicit so that the intent is obvious and that method signature text in interfaces and classes look the same.
> So, worthwhile or not?
It's probably not worth spending time on now but if we going to be
explicit with new methods then existing methods should be updated too.
More information about the core-libs-dev