list literal gotcha and suggestion

[Neal Gafter]

If it is "an initializer" that is "compatible" with the "Collection"
argument type, then the "conversion" exists and the method is a candidate.
If the method is selected as the most specific one during overload
resolution, then the generated code will "perform the conversion", which
essentially means constructing the collection object.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <reinier at zwitserloot.com
> wrote:

> So, passing a {1, 2, 3} literal inline to a method that takes a Collection
> will not require a cast?
> Please explain how that would work.
>
>    --Reinier Zwitserloot
>
>
>
> On 2009/06/10, at 23:52, Neal Gafter wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <
> reinier at zwitserloot.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009/06/10, at 21:32, Neal Gafter wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all.  I believe that the cast would be unnecessary in virtually
>>> all use contexts, just as the cast from "3" to "byte" is unnnecessary in
>>> virtually all use contexts.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't coin include byte literals?
>>
>
> Yes.  That has nothing to do with the part of the existing language
> specification that allows "3" to be assigned to a "byte".
>
>  I think you overstate. "Virtually all use contexts"? I'd say that methods
>> taking in a java.util.Collection is a pretty big use context.
>>
>
> Agreed, those contexts are included.
>
> -Neal
>
>
>