Jose Francisco Ruiz Massieu

yes I know, thats why it says (run doX(int... i) by rules 1 and 2), but what it's important (I think) is that, in this case both Widening + varargs , Boxing + vararg can be together, in the same class. So

While overloading, Widening + vararg and Boxing + vararg can only be used in a mutually exclusive manner i.e. not together

doesn't apply at all, do it???, what do you think???

well, i think that rule 4 it is not completly true due if we invoke line 10 with

byte b = 5; doX(b);

it works even with overloading, (run doX(long... l) by rules 1 and 2), so in this case it is perfectly legal to have both Widening + vararg and Boxing + vararg together

what do you think???

maybe:

4) Widening + varargs , Boxing + vararg together
4.1) Without overloading Is allowed
4.2) With overloading
4.2.1) Without widening Not allowed

doX(int...i) doX(Integer...i) doX(5) //ambiguous (Rule 4)

4.2.2) With widening Is allowed

doX(int...i) doX(Integer...i) byte b = 5; doX(b); // ok, (run doX(int... i) by rules 1 and 2) doX(b, b); // ok, (run doX(int... i) by rules 1 and 2) doX(b, 5); // ok, (run doX(int... i) by rules 1 and 2)

i dont know if you need this still, but anyway, what happen is that the constant-specific class body is regarded as an anonymous (cannot be referred to by a name) class, so we can write whatever valid code inside the c-scb but the only exposed methods are wich are overriding an instance method, and the compiler doesnt complaint because the code is visible inside de c-scb even if you put it as public but not outside but only instace methods, ok???