The problem is that the documentation of the classes of the default package are
not easely accessible. They appear in the index and in the class hierarchy, but
if you don't know the name of the class it is almost impossible to find them.

The default package does not appear in the package list. This is logical from a
certain point of view, since it is not a package, however it would be practical
to include it in order to know what classes are in the default package and have
access to their documentation in an easy way. It can be included in italics or
between brackets to make it clear that is not a "real" package.

I think it would be nice to have such a feature in 1.2 or any
later version of javadoc.
(Review ID: 43441) 
======================================================================




Javadoc (a great tool) has  customer  support for packages,
with the "PackageListFrame" etc.  This is fine for everything
except classes that are in no packages, i.e. that are
in the "unnamed package".  Those appear only in the complete
"class list", scattered among classes that are in packages.
This feature request is to add a way to include the
"unnamed" package in the package list, with an associated
list of classes that aren't in a package.
(Review ID: 83660)
======================================================================

None (that I know).
======================================================================

Yes, to find out un-named package classes can be a pain. We definitely need a way to figure out such classes from the all-classes list or class hierarchy.
  xxxxx@xxxxx   1999-02-23

I'm in favor of having a way to do this.  The default package could 
appear in the package list as:
    [unnamed]
or:
    [nopackage]
We should get other opinions on this.
  xxxxx@xxxxx   2001-02-27

I'm all in favor of it.

I will note that since you can't specify the unnamed package as one of the
packages you want to document, the javadoc tool can't correctly return it
in the list of packages specified on the command line. Nevertheless,
when you ask javadoc for the containing package of a class that is in the
unnamed namespace, javadoc does correctly return a PackageDoc 
that refers to a package with an empty name. The standard doclet can
do anything it wants with that.

  xxxxx@xxxxx   2001-03-05

This is a duplicate of bug 4359386, which has been fixed.  There is now a link to an index for classes in the unnamed package.
  xxxxx@xxxxx   2001-08-20

You can dummy this up by editing the HTML output.
But, it's a LOT of editing to set up all the links
(I tried it), and you need to repeat most of it
each time you re-generate.