On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 22:25:12 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 100.0 is a double, so the result is also a double > > Right. Which is why I said that in this specific case it (meaning the changed > code) is clear without the explicit cast. So I don't object to this > particular change. I just used it as the first example I found to point out > an overall concern. It flags those as an "unnecessary cast", how it flags them is up to the settings (info, warning, error). The code will function the same with or without them, but every so often they do expose a problem where the author thought a cast did something, while in reality it did not. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/960
