Collection Expressions: Do not require [ ] when there is only one item in the expression and it is a collection

[TonyValenti]

It would be really nice to simply be able to type:

property = .. collection,

instead of:

property = [.. collection],

[jnm2]

Not sure I agree. I'd start by thinking about spreading tuples first:

M(.. tuple1, .. tuple2); // Same as M(tuple1.A, tuple1.B, tuple2.A, tuple1.B);

Compared to:

M((.. tuple 1, .. tuple 2)); // Same as M((tuple1.A, tuple1.B, tuple2.A, tuple1.B));`

If womples existed, the same thing would hold. These two syntaxes would mean different things:

M(.. tuple);
M((.. tuple,));

I have the same intuition that .. collection and [.. collection] mean different things.

[jnm2]

I might even expect that M(.. inlineArray4); means M(inlineArray[0], inlineArray[1], ...);

[HaloFour]

Not to mention ..operand is already legal syntax for a range. My understanding was that it was specifically the collection expression syntax which allowed for it to be interpreted as a spread instead of as a range.

[jnm2]

Ah, that's even more important of a point. The syntactic model needs to decide which it is, based on syntax alone without knowing the type of anything or what names are in scope. So yes, property = .. collection will forever mean a range, I believe.