I don't think it's breaking change, since having a protected property just cannot work :)
2017-01-25 13:12 GMT+01:00 Andres Almiray <aalmi...@gmail.com>: > +1. > > This being a potential breaking change should IMHO be scheduled for 3.0-ea. > > ------------------------------------------- > Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast > http://jroller.com/aalmiray > http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray > -- > What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. > There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, > and those who don't. > To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > >> Hi, for traits we explicitly prohibit protected (and package private) >> methods - see the doco for some details. For properties however, we >> never check (in 2.4.7 and earlier) for that case (protected) and in >> fact include the property in the trait as if it was private. I was >> thinking of adding an extra check to prohibit protected properties >> since I don't think we can give any special meaning beyond private (or >> public) and it's only confusing to let that case through. Any other >> opinions? >> >> Cheers, Paul. >> > >
