3 ms·

I really wouldn't call something you need to write, to make something happen, "syntactic sugar". Otherwise types are just sugar. Indicies are just sugar. Lists

• fc417fc802 1y ago
  It's the other way around. Implicit conversion is syntactic sugar for explicit conversion. Sugar is anything that is functionally identical, just notated more conveniently. That said, I think you're correct about the casting versus conversion distinction. Languages frequently overload established terminology with slightly modified variants and it's incredibly confusing.